The brouhaha over Hillary Clinton giving three speeches at Goldman Sachs for $675,000, or $225,000 per speech, raises an interesting question for the 2016 presidential election.
Donald Trump was paid $1.5 million to speak at The Learning Annex’s real estate wealth expos in 2006 and 2007. Two speeches for $3 million, as opposed to three speeches for $675,000. Is that what Trump meant when he accused Clinton of playing the “woman card” — pay inequality?
Is the disparity between their speaking fees further evidence of gender bias manifested in the pay inequality experienced by women? Or is it proof of sound-bite Trump’s willingness to pander to the TV camera with a total and complete disregard for truth or facts?
Thus far, all Trump has touted is himself and not the means by which he will fulfill his promises. “Trust me, I’m the best, I’ll get it done,” he says, but why should we? The November election is not three-card monte; we are electing the president, not a carnival barker.
Whoever this country elects as president, that decision should be based on the facts behind the candidate’s policies not personality.
James F. Wisniewski