2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNoam Chomsky gets paid $20K to $30K per speech. Outrage!
Category: Authors, Foreign Policy, Health and Wellness, Inspirational Speakers, Leadership Speakers, Politics
Booking Fee Range: $20,001 - $30,000 About Fees
Travels From: Please Contact
- See more at: http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Noam-Chomsky#sthash.px688t8z.dpuf
http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Noam-Chomsky
Who does this guy think he is! Does he know that people work an entire year to make that kind of money? And he just walks in and says some words, and that's it! Oligarch!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)I'm a big fan.
treestar
(82,383 posts)then it's wrong, period.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That should get you started.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And are well known to be interviewed on TV? That's a form of power. So we should know who is paying him and assume that his writings and speeches will help them to the extent he can.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I wish...
But seriously, he'd need to give 22 speeches to get to $675,000.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hillary, making $675K for 3 speeches, totally different story.
This thread doesn't demonstrate what you're attempting to demonstrate. I prolly won't kick it again...except to the curb.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I expected "it doesn't matter, it's different, etc." but some of the excuses have been more creative than I thought they would be.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The issue is who does the paying.
If you get that money from corporations, it's going to change you. It.
Your OP is a total strawman.
treestar
(82,383 posts)A lot of people "get money from corporations." Or insurance companies or other oligarchs, because they work there.
Hillary could make a lot more in a private sector job. And not be giving it to the Clinton Foundation.
This whole thing is so absurd. Bernie would take it if he could get it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Chomsky isn't appeasing the powerful in any of his speeches.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We aren't against people simply making money on the lecture circuit.
What matters is who you take the money FROM.
Speaking fees from corporations to a likely presidential candidate(everyone always knew HRC was going to run) are about buying influence in a future presidential administration.
Speaking fees from universities and activist groups to a great scholar speaking with incorruptible views have nothing in common with that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And I'd say that about anybody who was running for president(which HRC was always planning to do).
Chomsky isn't running for president.
If he was, this might be vaguely comparable.
If he were taking fees from corporations and banks, which is in a totally different and category.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's the corporate ones. You take those and you can't ever stand up to corporations afterwards.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)to misleadingly portray Hillary in the worst light possible. Do you really think people haven't figured out your propaganda strategy?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It is not morally neutral to speak to take speaking gigs from Goldman-Sachs.
Chomsky's fees, which are simply standard speaking fees on the circuit, aren't paid by anyone who wants to buy influence with him. And he isn't a presidential candidate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You don't really think I haven't seen this propaganda strategy before, do you?
marble falls
(57,106 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)that included the Fragrance Association.
That very diversity splits Hillary's interests, if you insist that nobody gets paid for a speech without doing more than the speech.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You'll have to go to the academic literature however, the establishment system has essentially erased the idea from the executive and legislative branch guidance on governance.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that's a lot of money. And by the standards set out here, Chomsky would certainly be telling these relatively rich people what they want to hear.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)He's not trying the be the leader of the free world.
He's not going to be creating policies that would be influenced by wall Street bribes and effect peoples lives
What a bull shit attempt legitimize Hillary's shady business deals
daleanime
(17,796 posts)dchill
(38,505 posts)someone else is overpaid.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Noam should be worth much more than a speech by Hillary.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)You get paid what the market will bear. It shows exactly what OP intended - wishing Noam got more money doesn't mean there is anyone who will pay him that much.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Come on. Do better.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)You can't see the difference?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)When she makes public policy, she gets paid by the taxpayer.
But it's good to know that you think Chomsky would be disqualified from public office for his speaking fee corruption. I didn't think he would end up under the bus, but there he goes.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)from a group and then running for public office which regulates that group and claiming that his independence from influence in the process is beyond question.
This analogy makes you sound either disingenuous or unintelligent - neither of which is flattering to you.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...as yet another example of the HRC Group poutrage and ridiculousness. It's great comedy! They just get sillier and sillier...
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That's the legislative you're thinking about.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)immigration, internet policy, coal industry and emissions and other environmental issues, etc.
Usually it's Republicans questioning the presidential capacity to regulate but I guess it's only a short hop for a Hillary supporter to go there.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)In some instances, such as the EPA, the courts have shot down the new administrative rules. This is especially true with the SEC, whose enforcement arm is shot down on the regular.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)But not because he has powers he didn't have before.
He simply had the fortitude to use those powers in his second term.
EO's only go so far.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)or indeed any office (it if is acknowledged there even are any other powerful offices) must have a history of no paid speechifying? If Noam wants to run in the future, he can't, right?
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)as Wall Street's chief "attaboy" dispenser as one factor among many that run counter to her laughable claim to be a progressive.
Sanders never said that accepting a speaking fee was disqualifying as a candidate or disqualifying as a progressive.
If you have fallen for the Clinton lie that Sanders said that, please provide a link.
awake
(3,226 posts)He would never keep his speeches secret he would be proud to share them
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)you got it right
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Noam Chomsky is frickin awesome. Hillary not so much.
About 10% of Hillary's fee, and he's not running for a position (President) in which he would be responsible for overseeing regulation of these organizations.
Carry on, and good luck with your efforts.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)2. That isn't even chump change compared to what HRH gets.
3. He has no governmental or political influence to sell.
See the difference.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)fees are set...or charged. Also, he is a long term liberal who has written well-received books and whose opinion is valued...at the stated cost. He doesn't do high school graduations. There is this entity called a Speaker's Bureau. I don't know if Chomsky uses it...probably doesn't have to...but it does exist and it determines the market for speaking fees.
Right Wingers don't pay him those fees...in fact they don't want to hear him. And certainly not bankers, et al. Thus, his speaking is not worth anything to them.
It's called the Market. Hillary adds an extra zero to her speeches because it is relative to the results. I guarantee you that once she has lost the Primary, there will be few to no speeches and the fee will likely drop below Chomsky's. She is a one-trick pony...when I'm elected, yada yada. I don't think anyone really needs to SEE her speeches.
melman
(7,681 posts)is how embarrassing it is that you think this is clever.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Noam is now disqualified forever.
lob1
(3,820 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)shows the hypocrisy of socialism.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)ericson00
(2,707 posts)are two huge reasons I can't stand the guy and am very happy he didn't endorse my candidate, Hillary!
There's a reason I call that guy Noam Trotsky.
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Please!!1!
"PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE!!!!!"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)BTW, I love your kitties. They're adorable.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)IKR?
Thanks for loving kitties... We lost Mr. Mickey September, and it just hasn't been the same. I sense by fall I'll celebrate the election by becoming parents of new kitties. I'm already thinking of names. Mr. Mickey was the twin of Ms Mallory. I names Mickey and Mallory after the characters in Natural Born Killers.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Somebody is craving attention, the poor delicate thing.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Is Noam corrupt or not?
next IDIOTIC question for fucks sake?
treestar
(82,383 posts)He charges for his speeches, so isn't it relevant as to who has paid him? And might not that affect his writings?
Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)then you might have a point, but instead by drawing a false equivalence between chomsky and Clinton and their speeches you end up looking silly.
Why would that stop you now though...
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)mak3cats
(1,573 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And he'd probably even hand out complimentary transcripts of his speeches.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Response to DanTex (Original post)
CobaltBlue This message was self-deleted by its author.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bashing Hillary for doing what Chomsky does are as well. I mean, nobody seriously thinks that taking speaking fees is somehow sinful, do they?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)even while holding office because taking speaking fees isn't "sinful", right?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)receives them? What about to someone that is running for office? What about to someone that
is probably going to run for office? Are speaking fees ever "sinful" and if so under what circumstances?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)other than from taxpayers while they are in office. I don't know the details of the law, but I'm pretty sure it's something like that.
As far as during campaigning, it would probably be unwise politically, but I don't know what the legal or ethical ramifications are. If someone is running for congress and gives a paid commencement address, I'm not sure there's a problem, it might even be a campaign opportunity.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)betsuni
(25,538 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Which is the case many times per week lately, putting you in the Hilarious Hillarian Hall of Fame.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)That surely makes Hillary's Wall Street connections acceptable!
I'm embarrassed for Hillary supporters at this point.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They seem quite oblivious to how ridiculous they appear.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)They excuse away her connections with Henry Kissinger, one of the great butchers of the 20th century. If that doesn't embarrass them, nothing can.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I wonder how many millenials googled 'Kissinger' and were horrified. Heck of a job, Hill...most inept campaign, ever.
cali
(114,904 posts)do you find particularly difficult to understand?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)given a paid speech before getting elected, that would disqualify him as well. In fact, since Bill's speeches are part of the bash, then if turns out that Jane Sanders ever gave a paid speech, then Bernie's out.
Just so we're clear...
cali
(114,904 posts)And we're not talking some vague shit here. She was planning an immediate run for the highest office in the country and being paid by corporations who spend huge amounts of money lobbying government.
That is appalling. And it is all about greed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It would be fun if either of those guys actually ran for office, and we could find out how many people here are serious. Come to think of it, I imagine Nader gave paid speeches before his 2000 run, he had been a public figure for a while.
And it would be particularly funny if it turns out Bernie or Jane Sanders ever gave a paid speech.
But in this case, you are right, if you would refuse to support Moore or Chomsky for the same reason, that's consistent.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Going on the speaking circuit is a common way that former high government officials cash in, becoming rich as a result of their public service.
And many of us out here in the real world see it as kind of sleazy. It is legal, but I don't respect former public servants who cash in.
Most public officials understand that cashing in is what you do after you've completed your public service. Going back to the voters asking for support after you've cashed in is a pretty difficult proposition.
I have to wonder at all the political consultants for Clinton, Obama, and the DNC who got on board the Hillary train for 2016. The entire Dem Establishment endorsed her as the one and only DNC-approved candidate, all of them knowing about Hillary's time on the speaking circuit.
The entire Dem Establishment was so very out of touch that they never even imagined a $250,000 speech to CitiBank or Goldman Sachs might be a hindrance to electing a Democratic candidate. They deserve to go down to defeat for their obliviousness.
Bernie Sanders 2016
(sorry if you've read this before, there are so many threads on this issue)
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)this helped sink her campaign last time and what does she do? Accepts even more money. Stuck on stupid.
Nanjeanne
(4,961 posts)Is this supposed to mean something in relation to Hillary Clinton and her speaking fees to Wall Street insiders?
Vinca
(50,278 posts)Response to Vinca (Reply #50)
Name removed Message auto-removed
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Quid pro quo. Some folks on this site are so offended when others prosper. It's amazing the vitriol that spews when successful people endorse Hillary. I have no problem with Hillary making money when she's out of office. Jealousy is an ugly emotion
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I mean, let's face it, she did make a ton of money. Of course, a couple guys named Ben and Jerry have made even more (by selling ice cream to a nation with an obesity epidemic), but somehow those guys are swell.
Don't get me wrong, they are swell. But somehow, when Hillary earns a lot of money, it just makes certain kinds of people angry.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)And nobody's getting you wrong. They get your bullshit posts.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)resent them for it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is a real hoot.
Is Gandhi next?
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)NO.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)Never mind I checked, he isn't. Looks like what he gets paid to give speeches is irrelevant to me.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Not an issue when you aren't seeking the presidency, anyway.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Plus, he's speaking to the people, not the banks.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)All perfectly logical.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)I hope she didn't take the National Camping Association for too much.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Dems are used to people doing this kind of stuff to smear Hillary.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Was she not paid by those banks to give speeches?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)even though it's an obscene amount, it's barely the point. I'm sure you know that.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And maybe even tape and watch is speeches. Nice swing and a miss
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Valid comparison is really not your thing.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Who do they think they are, Football coaches?
Now, lets see if you can spot the difference between someone who has ideas sharing them and someone who has influence, peddling it.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)It happens to me sometimes. Don't worry. Better luck next time.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)I KNOW y'all understand this difference...quite embarrassed for you when you pretend you don't, nonetheless...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Where do you draw the line then?
And isn't he disqualified from ever running for office now?
Arazi
(6,829 posts)besides, is HRC v Noam Chomsky speaking to Wall St the same?
Nope, they aren't (has Chomsky ever spoken before any Wall St players?)
Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)When Trolls Impugned Him, You'll Never Believe What Noam Chomsky Did Next
17 Ways You Personally Benefit From Hillary's Campaign
37 Things You Can Do to Increase Your Disposable Income By Posting Online
Just helping you buzzfeed up your game while you are on Time-out.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)EOM
Iggy Knorr
(247 posts)its good to have a hobby and stay active.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I sold it, along with all the stock for my mineral specimen business, in 2007. Thanks for asking.
think
(11,641 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Maybe by the tenth time it will be clever.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)considering Noam Chomsky ins't a candidate in the primaries as far as I know. If he was, I'd certainly want to scrutinize who he is taking money from.