The Clinton's speeches never take a whole hour.

<sarcasm off>

Any day now, certainly.

Both of these athletes are the end of thier careers. They saw an opportunity to make a life changing amount of money and took it. They spent thier entire lives working toward that moment. I don't begrudge them one moment.

Totally out of context.

Post which complain about Bill and Hillary getting "so much money" from speeches. Bill and Hillary spent time in getting their education and in politics, see an opportunity to make money giving speeches.

Although each fighter made a very large amount of money, the amount was not life changing for either fighter. Each fighter was already extremely wealthy before Saturday's fight. Their lives had already changed for the better. Neither fighter had to do the fight in order to provide for their families, or make the lives of their families better.

Both fighters make millions of dollars for every fight in which they participate. Mayweather has been one of the highest paid athletes in the world for years. In the last few years, partly because of Tiger Woods' problems, Mayweather has been the highest paid athlete in the world. Mayweather makes around $10-$20+ million per fight. In 2013 he made about $80+ million. Last year Floyd Mayweather made $100+ million and that was just from boxing. Mayweather, unlike most male athletes, at least at his level, does not have any endorsement deals. I am pretty certain Manny Pacquiao makes about $5 million-$10 million per fight. He also makes millions more from his endorsement deals.

The purse was supposed to be $300 million, give or take, and he was guaranteed 60% of that, win or lose.

It's reported, one of the first things he's going to do is post bail for Suge Knight.

What a guy!

Sorta boring. I was told Mayweather got 180 million and Pacquiao got 120 million.

Wasn't Wm Jefferson Clinton President of the United State of America? Hasn't the GOP hate machine relentless attacks and during his presidency sued him and Hillary for every gawd thing they can sue them on? Has the attacks stopped?

Nope and it will continue no matter what.

Making money from speeches which are positive, may keep them afloat, since they do have bills, and their foundation's money honestly do go to helping others? Hard to believe huh.

Also, GOP Party do not discriminate when it comes to hate, lies and untruths.

Complaining about their fees do not mind of a fighter gets millions for a fight. Yes, you are right, the RW machines just want to complain about the Clintons.

Is it anything like a politician's quid pro quo?

It's different? Whodagessed?

That's what happens when you surround a mentally challenged person who took way too many blows to the head with the most vicious opportunists alive.

Also, he's a despicable human being but kind of a genius. He's going to be making millions off other fighters for years through his promotion - he is his own promoter.

Also, he's been hit in the head, like, three times in his career. It's kind of ridiculous and is the reason his fights are unwatchable.

He said he has a trust set up that will pay him a million a month for the rest of his life.

The hillarians continue to scrape the bottom of the barrel. You should embrace the fact that your candidate gets millions from corporations. And, finally, if the primary pitted HRC against maywether, I would prefer Clinton

but this was the 1st fight I actually sat the entire time through. I'm glad that I streamed it and didn't have to pay $90 just for 1 fight. Overall, I thought it was alright even though there was no KO.
I also heard from the announcer that both Pacquiao and Mayweather got paid about $100K per second. That's insane.

tell me, as somebody asked you above, what is this guy's potential for Quid Pro Quo?

Give speeches, don't see Quid Pro Quo in either.

I did not know this. Thanks for letting me know.

By the way, in case you wonder this is a citizens united feature... where it is really obvious.

Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.

going back to the home country and British common law.

Rarely the FBI has those notices for issues in banking but usually they involve a series of other things as well like embezzlement, Most folks think of it as in government, and how it applies to corruption levels.

I could see it if Mayweather engages in a contract promising to lose but at that point you get into other pesky issues.

The reason why a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, are raising this with the Clintons is a history including a stint in State, and the foundation. And that lots of people for the moment are mostly inside a certain political cottage industry, but... I have heard it outside it as well. It is not a flood, but it is trickle for the moment.

At this point you also have this issue of... impressions and how that can become reality in some minds.

For the record, so you are clear. I am just presenting to you how this plays inside the bubble and for a lot of the folks we talk to outside the bubble. I have no evidence that any impropriety has happened, but I have heard quite a bit of these doubts, and not just from your average republican.

The words quid pro quo have crossed a few lips and not just republicans. Those I expect... a few, if they did not I would worry that the machine is broken.

Of money paid to Mayweather for the fight but complaining when the Clintons receive funds for their speeches. Bill is not the first ex president to get paid for their speeches, will not be the last. Do you think Kissenger may have been paid for speeches after he was SOS? It is the negative post about the Clintons getting paid for speeches while people in sports, etc are given a pass by the same ones complaining about the Clintons. Point was made.

If he had, you would have heard it most likely. If she was not running for POTUS those issues would not be raised, or would be raised in the context of inequality

By the way her polling numbers are down regarding trust as of this moment. That is what polls are. That is quite frankly the real world.

So we are even more Chrystal clear, I don't care. I will not get excited by any pol ever again. We go back to the other conversation we had on oligarchy.

which would you choose? Whether it's a Clinton speech or a boxing match or a pro ball contract, you take as much as your agent can get you.

Of the Clintons getting paid nicely for speeches, not in the millions, but when someone else such as Mayweather gets big bucks it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Hillary Clinton kicked off her Presidential campaign claiming she wanted to be the champion for "everyday people".

Which would be nice, but the speeches make that problematic.

1. When you make $200,000 for a speech, then you are living in a different world than mass of people who make less than $40,000 a YEAR. Having that disconnect makes it hard for you to understand them, to feel what they feel, and even to care about them.

2. that kind of coin means you move in different circles. Remember when people attacked Romney for his investing? Who jumped up to defend him? None other than Bill Clinton. Like so http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=755813

What did he say there "you and I have friends who invest in companies".

He cannot say to a media millionaire "you and I have friends who work for the minimum wage" or "you and I have friends who are struggling to make ends meet" or "struggling to pay for college" or "have been unemployed for over twenty weeks."

Because the Clintons, unlike we the people, don't have those kind of friends. They are up there on the 100th floor, far far above the little ants below.

Remember the 2007 primary? Candidates were asked about social security and Hillary followed Richardson's lead - against raising the cap on payroll taxes. To her, that would be, as she said "a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class". Never mind that 93% of Americans make less than the cap - Hillary was going to bat, fighting for the top 7%. Meanwhile without extra funds, the solutions offered to make the program sustainable are more like a) raise the retirement age, or b) cut benefits. You know, things that are going to impact the bottom 80% far more than they affect the top 7%.

Hillary is likely to goto bat for the top 7% because those are her people. She's IN that group. She's part of the government OF the rich, BY the rich, and more importantly FOR the rich no matter what lip service she gives to the everyday people.

Mayweather, while his payout is disgusting and absurd, is not running for office where he is likely to tilt the playing field even more to rich people like himself.

is okay if others makes absurd payouts. You have proven my point.

if you cannot distinguish between a multi-millionaire and a multi-millionaire who is running for office claiming to be a champion for everyday people.

Did you miss the part where I said his payday was ridiculous and disgusting?

Then you have missed the point.

He wasn't exactly poor.

he's no FDR.

How did Hillary champion the people in 2007? By taking a strong stand against raising taxes on people making over $97,000 a year.

Has she learned something since then?

It isn't suspicious when an entertainer makes that much money. Two politicians who weren't born into any wealth? Hmmmm

I would bet Obama will be giving speeches also.

every time he threw a punch.

that's $83,000 per second... so in 7 seconds he made more than the MLB or NFL minimum.

oh, and that's 24,000,000 times higher than the federal minimum wage.

i am not begruding him his money, but DAYUM!

sP