Dorkington Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I'm kind of getting on the bandwagon that the worst thing for our country is a continuation of the norm. I still haven't decided on who I'm voting for, though I know I won't be voting for any establishment candidate. Cruz, Rubio, and Hillary have no chance of winning my vote for that reason. Anyone who can get lobby and campaign finance reform going, will do a lot of good for our country, imo. Unfortunately, its difficult to get people to make new laws that'd lose them money personally.
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary Clinton's venality will be her downfall Hillary Clinton has many liabilities as a presidential candidate, her strident liberalism and thin record of accomplishment among them. But her greatest liability is her venality. And it may be what ultimately dooms her campaign. Hillary's corruptibility was on display at a town hall event in Nashua, N.H., on Wednesday. When asked by CNN's Anderson Cooper why she had accepted $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, Clinton replied, "I don't know. That's what they offered." Clinton said she accepted the money in part because she wasn't really thinking about running for president at the time. Then she insisted that the money wouldn't influence her policies if she becomes president. When asked if she regretted taking the money, she said that she did not. First of all, it is untrue that Goldman Sachs offered Clinton $675,000 to speak. As the Washington Examiner's Paul Bedard reported, Hillary's speech fee was set by her agent, not the bank. Clinton challenged Cooper to "just name one thing" on which those who have paid her for speeches have influenced her. There are numerous examples of the Clintons or their charities receiving money at times when one or both of them exerted influence on behalf of the sources of that money. In fact, a best-selling book was written on the subject last May. Clinton also told Cooper about Goldman Sachs, "I mean, they're not giving me very much money now, I can tell you that much." But again, that's not quite true, at least according to most people's definition of "very much." As The Examiner's Timothy P. Carney notes, Goldman Sachs employees have donated more than $90,000 to Hillary's presidential campaign, nearly twice as much as Ted Cruz has raised from the Wall Street giant, even though his wife works there. More at the link: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clintons-venality-will-be-her-downfall/article/2582479
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Chelsea ClintonVerified account @ChelseaClinton 46m46 minutes ago Disappointed to see the segregation of men and women in Saudi Arabian local council meetings: http://on.wsj.com/1SYjQJ8 #NotThere But THRILLED to deposit their giant check! NYT Politics @nytpolitics 3h3 hours ago We fact checked Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders during the fifth #DemDebate http://nyti.ms/20KEvBC
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary Clinton just suggested she’s not ‘establishment.’ Come on. http://wapo.st/20dRTw4
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 How many Democrats are going to buy Hillary’s nuanced view that every Republican and possibly one or two Democrats are captive to their donors.............. but she is not ?” lol......... The sexist double standard behind why millennials love Bernie Sanders. Clinton struggles again among younger voters. .
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 But THRILLED to deposit their giant check! Nice to see Chelsea following in her parents' footsteps of being completely out of touch with real life.
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 well no one can call her a cheap whore I don't think anyone ever considered Hillary 'cheap.'
Nanker Posted February 5, 2016 Author Posted February 5, 2016 I thought she was when she took the dishes from the White House in 2001.
unbillievable Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I got this for a Hillary Supporter for Christmas.
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Hillary boasting about all the small donors supporting her. Here's where she ranked in % of Q4 $ from small donors. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blasts-wall-street-but-still-draws-millions-in-contributions/2016/02/04/05e1be00-c9c2-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.html Edited February 5, 2016 by B-Man
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 I don't think anyone ever considered Hillary 'cheap.' Holy mother of !@#$!
B-Man Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 Holy mother of !@#$! That's what "they offered me", Joe.......................
reddogblitz Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 The good news is that that cool 21 mil will have no influence over any of her decision making heaven forbid she ever becomes prez. It wasn't even contributions (because at the time she didn't know she was gong to run ), it was pure profit.
3rdnlng Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 The good news is that that cool 21 mil will have no influence over any of her decision making heaven forbid she ever becomes prez. It wasn't even contributions (because at the time she didn't know she was gong to run ), it was pure profit. No, those contributions went to The Clinton Foundation for purely charitable purposes. Never mind that in 2013 The Clinton Foundation gave away about 8 million dollars of other peoples money but their overhead was about 84 million. In the same year the Koch brothers gave away about the same amount of their money but had an overhead of less than $500,000. http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
boyst Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 this was on imgur no ohio, no north carolina and two sc towns. bluffton is meh, though, interesting.
Recommended Posts