Future of the Democratic Party

Off-Topic Discussions

4,251 to 4,260 of 4,260 << first < prev | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | next > last >>

Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's more about who she gave the speeches too and how much she was paid.
If Goldman-Sachs offered you $200k US to come give an hour speech, would you say no?

Like I said, it's the optics, I'm not saying she had to turn down speeches, but who she gives speeches to is something she should have considered. Hillary was looking to have another run at President so I don't think she should have given speeches to Wall Street bankers. Theoretically the president is supposed to look out for all Americans, but if you're giving multiple speeches and collecting very large pay checks people are going to question how committed to keeping these big banks in line. I'll also say it didn't look good when Obama gave a speech just recently. As I said, it feels like payment for services rendered. I'm not saying that's what happened, just that's how it looks, and it seems to me making sure you don't appear to be doing anything underhanded is one of those things that's important in politics.

Now if you or I were asked to give a speech for Goldman-Sachs, and we're not running for office or anything, I'd think we'd be fools if we turned it down. We're private citizens and unless we're thinking of running for public office I don't think there's anything wrong taking most public speaking jobs. Bankers aren't inherently evil, but I do feel the industry needs to be regulated, and that's the root of my concerns with politicians taking extremely well paid speaking engagements from banks.

So you're saying that she did something wrong, even though she did something you'd do in a heartbeat and have no moral objection to.

You're right, it is payment for services rendered. Public speaking fees are a very normal and standard thing. Prices are negotiable, certain speakers can demand more money than others.

Tony Robbins for example charges about $100k.
Ken Burns charges $30-50k.
Biz Stone charges $50-100k.
Ann Coulter charges $20k.

The list of people who charge $5-10k is HUGE. Seriously, a friend of mine who you have probably never heard of charges $5k. And he primarily gives guest sermons at churches.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Any voters who still call the Republican party home either belong in the first two groups, or they desperately cling on to their tattered illusions of what they rationalized the GOP to be.

Let me just say that I have ample reason to dislike the Republican Party. I think I hate them more then almost anyone I know. However, voting in our system means very little. I strongly believe that most voters are not picking who they like, but rather the lesser of two evils. That is what allowed our election to devolve into the two most -disapproved candidates in history. For every negative trait you label one party with, the other party also practices it. Sure, one might be worse then the other, but neither is something worth voting for without the pressure of the horrible candidate on the other side.

You can write off one party or the other and label them based on the worst characteristics of their office-holders- (and they are BAD), but most people want an candidate who will stand up for their best interests. In this past election, neither candidate could credibly claim to serve the people, so calling people names seems unduly harsh.

As I've stated before, I utterly reject that voting means little. Yes, with our system, after the primaries there are only two viable options. Yes, likely both candidates and their platforms had to make some compromises to win the primaries. I reject your implication that Trump and Clinton are somehow both similarly "disapproved" and "horrible". It's plain that Trump's faults are legion, and still accruing daily. Clinton and the Democratic Party ran on a detailed and highly Progressive platform, with enormous input from Sanders and other Left voices. It is true her campaign suffered self-inflicted setbacks, but she was undone largely by enemies and (not so) friendly fire on multiple fronts and 20+ years of sh!tslinging indelibly staining her public image.

I further reject your "both sides do it" position as presented as utter bullsh!t.

I do completely right off the Republican Party and all who support it. They will never be Party of Lincoln; they are now the Party of Treasonous Trump. Voters who still support them are Lost; they cannot be reasoned with, and they must not be appeased. The 2016 Democratic Platform will improve their lives regardless of whether they like it or accept it, and this platform is a good foundation on which to build further Progressive gains in 2018 and beyond.

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Locking and removed a series of posts. Deliberately baiting and racist rhetoric is not acceptable. Additionally, please refer to this post regarding political topics on paizo.com.

4,251 to 4,260 of 4,260 << first < prev | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards