HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » You Decide If MILLIONS "E...

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:18 PM

You Decide If MILLIONS "Earned" By Bill Clinton in Speaking Fees During Hillary's Tenure

As Secretary of State has been sufficiently accounted for and explained. Has the Clinton's Transparency to date been sufficient such that it will not be a drag on the campaign IF Hillary in the end is The Democratic Nominee...

http://nypost.com/2016/01/01/hillary-clintons-13m-fail-as-secretary-of-state/

At her confirmation hearing, questioners raised the issue of her hubby’s global business. Hillary vowed to take “extraordinary steps . . . to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.” SNIP

In total, The Wall Street Journal reports, two dozen companies and groups, plus the Abu Dhabi government, gave Bill more than $8 million for speeches, even as they were hoping for favorable treatment from Hillary’s bureaucracy. And 15 of them also gave at least $5 million total to the foundation. SNIP

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon says “no evidence exists” connecting State Department actions under Hillary to Bill’s lucrative speeches. SNIP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-clintons-speech-income-shows-how-their-wealth-is-intertwined-with-charity/2015/04/22/12709ec0-dc8d-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html

The Clintons’ relationships with major funders present an unusual political challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now that she has formally entered the presidential race, the family may face political pressure and some legal requirements to provide further details of their personal finances and those of the foundation, giving voters a clearer view of the global network of patrons that have supported the Clintons and their work over the past 15 years. SNIP


Should Not The Voters Be asking The Clinton's for greater transparency relating to their Financial/Business interests...

GIVEN THAT THE MAINSTREAM CORPORATE MEDIA HAS PLACED A RELATIVE MORATORIUM ON ANY DETAILED INQUIRY?

A spokesman for Bill Clinton declined to comment on the overlap between speech sponsors and foundation donors, saying only that the former president’s speaking schedule has been largely consistent since he left the White House. Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state. SNIP


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705

After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows. SNIP


So what say we? Question The Messengers... Question Sources... Excuses? Explanations? What I have displayed here is only the most meager sampling that Hillary's ardent supporters have consciously or otherwise decided to ignore!

There is a taint that cannot and should not be disregarded to this ""Fromtrunner" when it comes to BIGGG MONEY that somehow it ain't exactly... clean....

Is it not appropriate for someone who would deign to be President be more rather than less forthcoming in order to eliminate to as much a degree as possible, the odor of impropriety when it comes to her "family" finances.

More rather than less disclosure
it would seem is appropriate in order to ward off the obvious criticisms and potential conflicts that will surely arise should said Corporatist/Oligarchy anointed "Frontrunner" become the Democratic Nominee? So what say ye?

As I write this, I am hearing the Clinton Foundation discussed on CNN.... There is no spokesperson that can explain with sufficient veracity, that which is at this point perhaps... inexplicable.

90 replies, 8025 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 90 replies Author Time Post
Reply You Decide If MILLIONS "Earned" By Bill Clinton in Speaking Fees During Hillary's Tenure (Original post)
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 OP
leftofcool Jan 2016 #1
jkbRN Jan 2016 #11
Proserpina Jan 2016 #2
Gman Jan 2016 #3
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #4
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #6
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #31
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #47
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #49
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #53
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #57
ViseGrip Jan 2016 #88
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #71
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #60
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #64
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #61
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #87
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #89
jkbRN Jan 2016 #9
840high Jan 2016 #24
Amimnoch Jan 2016 #28
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #32
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #51
Plucketeer Jan 2016 #39
Laser102 Jan 2016 #43
Plucketeer Jan 2016 #44
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #5
jkbRN Jan 2016 #10
azmom Jan 2016 #33
Fuddnik Jan 2016 #40
abelenkpe Jan 2016 #42
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #67
haikugal Jan 2016 #80
Live and Learn Jan 2016 #54
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #7
jkbRN Jan 2016 #13
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #15
JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #30
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #35
pangaia Jan 2016 #48
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #73
JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #76
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #78
JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #79
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #86
Fuddnik Jan 2016 #17
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #18
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #21
Fuddnik Jan 2016 #29
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #55
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #62
haikugal Jan 2016 #82
Phlem Jan 2016 #37
840high Jan 2016 #26
INdemo Jan 2016 #56
senz Jan 2016 #66
Bradical79 Jan 2016 #70
haikugal Jan 2016 #83
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #74
DirkGently Jan 2016 #8
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #20
Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2016 #38
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #81
onehandle Jan 2016 #12
jkbRN Jan 2016 #14
Phlem Jan 2016 #63
JoePhilly Jan 2016 #16
JTFrog Jan 2016 #36
Phlem Jan 2016 #65
Name removed Jan 2016 #19
Punkingal Jan 2016 #22
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #23
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #25
INdemo Jan 2016 #58
jalan48 Jan 2016 #27
pangaia Jan 2016 #50
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #77
Babel_17 Jan 2016 #34
Laser102 Jan 2016 #41
SammyWinstonJack Jan 2016 #45
NoMoreRepugs Jan 2016 #46
pangaia Jan 2016 #52
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #68
JDPriestly Jan 2016 #84
Karma13612 Jan 2016 #90
quickesst Jan 2016 #59
NurseJackie Jan 2016 #69
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #72
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #75
Maedhros Jan 2016 #85

Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:22 PM

1. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:57 PM

11. Never facing the facts.

As always!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:23 PM

2. Does greed need an explanation, or is it one?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:25 PM

3. Blah blah blah

More noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:26 PM

4. Yes he earned the money he received for his speaking. You could say the same about

professional sports team players.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:29 PM

6. Hmmmm?

Kind funny how the fees for a speech by the former President reportedly doubled and tripled ... after Hillary was appointed SOS... Hmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:04 PM

31. It would be interesting to see how you truly link this one.

Maybe while you are linking this one you will also find the link as why Jane Sanders was hired by Burlington College and then she thought she could pull off the property purchase by Burlington College and then failed to raise the funds to pay for the property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:13 PM

47. Either Bill should have collected fees for speaking OR Hillary should have run for president and

served as Secretary of State.

No matter what she did or did not do, no matter what he did or did not do, these fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation inevitably result in the APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

Sorry, but that is the way it is.

The Progressive Movement then and now works toward clean government.

Whatever happened behind the closed doors when Hillary and Bill talked to their wealthy friends, no matter who was or was not introduced to whom, no matter how many favors were or were not done, Hillary's ties to those who paid her and her husband the generous speaking fees, those businesses that Hillary and Bill have helped, the people that Bill and Hillary speak to fairly often or even just once who wish for and have received assistance, advice, or just connections from the State Department or from the Clintons themselves -- all of those events and people strengthen and worsen the appearance of corruption.

Hillary Clinton may be a wonderful person. She should not be running for president.

We do not need her or her many friends who want favors from her. We don't want or need them.

I'm shocked that she is running. She will have big problems with this during the general election if nominated.

This is a big problem, much bigger than her admirers realize. Somewhere out there is a corruption scandal that may or may not be her fault but has been beautifully orchestrated to make her utterly unelectable. That is my guess. And it is a pretty good guess based on the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:18 PM

49. Waiting to see the impropriety proof. Wjat would be different in the case

Of Jane Sanders becoming president of Burlington College?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:24 PM

53. The comparison is utterly weak. I've already heard about the $200,000 she is said to have

been given in settlement. That's less than Bill Clinton got per speech. It's more like what Hillary was paid per appearance and speech. And Hillary is not that great a speaker.

Jane Sanders did a job. Hillary's speaking was not much of a job. The hours were not very demanding.

The comparison is really weak. Really pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:37 PM

57. In the case of Bill and Hillary, the places who have agreed to pay

The amounts which was paid, no one forced the amount. Most of the money was donated to charity which in turn helped those less fortunate. That may not be important to some people but with some of the speeches on Wall Street it is "taking from the rich and giving to the poor", something I have heard before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #53)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 11:54 AM

88. Charity? Much was funneled to the Global Foundation....what a set up!

 

Whatever you think of this, it WILL be a problem for Hillary, and she should not be the nominee.

If she is, hypocrisy will be everywhere in the party defending her. Then when congress makes more of this shit legal....our party cannot complain. What a vicious cycle of stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 07:51 PM

71. Do you seriously think the Republicans will need to prove anything about Hillary?

It's all innuendo. This will not be about facts or reality. It will be about the appearance of impropriety whether it happened or not.

As I pointed out, Jane Sanders' worked at a regular job and was paid for it including some sort of severance pay. There is no appearance of impropriety in that.

Getting $200 thousand and more for a speech??? When you have alll kinds of contacts in D.C. and you our your wife is Sec. of State??????? That's got the possibility of and probability of very believable suggestions and allegations of corruption written all over it.

I'm not saying that
Hillary or bill DID ANYTHING WRONG.

They didn't need to. That is not how the appearance of a conflict of corruption works. People in politics need to be concerned about that and careful about that all the time.

Hillary and Bill have not been. That's OK if they want to leave politics. But apparently they don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:52 PM

60. Well Said...

We have a Phenomenal candidate in Bernie Sanders who unlike his "Frontrunning" opponent, is free from the potential General Election scourge of SCANDAL.

There is not even the slightest potential hint of impropriety in Bernie, so why risk massive defeat with a candidate who is so undeniably fatally flawed in the eyes of a solid majority of Americans... even as the so called "Lesser Evil" candidate which is so often the Establishment "Engineered" case.

Just ONCE it would be nice for the voters to choose their preferred candidate rather than have it "selected" for us by the unholy alliance of the Corporatist Oligarchy and their MSM mouthpieces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:03 PM

64. equally well stated. +100 eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:57 PM

61. You nailed it, as always. I am so afraid that if HRC

is our nominee, we are going to face all sorts of stuff we haven't even dreamed of.

But, the GOP is holding in the wings.

I have been supporting Bernie because he is the right person at the right time for this war-weary, war-poor, frustrated, dilapidated country of ours.

I am against Hillary because she reeks of entitlement and controversy and has lousy judgement to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #61)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:07 AM

87. Judgement Is Poor On Hillarry's Part... Correctly Stated!

Judgement is at the heart of it all. There is the distinct appearance at minimum of ulterior self serving motives quite often in her decision making that more often than not have resulted in substantially NEGATIVE outcomes.

In my book, not a good candidate for a job that carries the responsibility above all else, of PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ENTIRE PLANET!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #87)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:13 PM

89. +1000. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:55 PM

9. Lol...

Did you really just compare sports athletes to politicians who make policy????


Srsly, please just stop now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:51 PM

24. That poster comes up with

 

the most silly excuses for the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:54 PM

28. Shocking news: People want to pay an ex president who presided over the most successful economy

 

in decades to speak at their events???



I do hope Michele Obama is watching this poutrage! She might have to deal with this one day as well is she gets politically active and Obama is committing the heinous crime of making money while speaking at events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:05 PM

32. And the Clinton's also are much more in demand than the George W Bush family.

Obama made a wonderful keynote speech in the 2004 convention, yes he will get money for speaking fees, Michele can probably get speaking fees also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:21 PM

51. The speaking fees are not the problem.

Running for the presidency after taking very high speaking fees while your wife is Secretary of State and in a position to say yes or no to things that those paying the fees want is the problem.

I realize that there is some complexity in following the money from the speaking fees to the approval say of arms deals or other favors, but the Republicans are very good at making these complexities understandable to the average Joe.

The Clintons should have thought this through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:32 PM

39. In what spacey scenario

 

is an hour's yammering of general observations worth millions??? What TANGIBLE results could give an honest return for such an amount? the speeches are just token acknowledgements - like a beggar saying thank you as a quarter rattles in his tin cup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:55 PM

43. Awww. That's a terrible thing to say about Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laser102 (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:59 PM

44. Yes, it would be.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:27 PM

5. I Saw "The Big Short" Last Night.. I Highly Recommend That Prior to Casting Your Vote in The Primary

people watch this movie.

Then ask yourself... Who ENDED Glass Steagal and which candidate in the Democratic Presidential Primary has vowed to restore it and which candidate is against restoring it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:56 PM

10. BOOM

K&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:08 PM

33. I hear it's an excellent movie.

Will definitely watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:33 PM

40. I read the book a couple of years ago.

I hope the movie is as good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:53 PM

42. The primary is the real election

Its important people turn out to vote in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:17 PM

67. exactly!

In this cycle, it's true.

We have two diametrically opposed democratic candidates.

One is for the 99% and one is for the 1%

We need to nominate the right one in the primary season otherwise it's game over on November 8th.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #67)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:04 AM

80. ^^^THIS^^^

Our country and the world are depending on us...our children, all children, women and men. We must have this revolution now so we can deal with our very real collective problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:26 PM

54. +10,000 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:33 PM

7. How dare a former President make money speaking.

More RW water spilled across the pages of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:01 PM

13. Uh yeah, when a president repeals glass stegal

And gives speeches at banks, not to mention, his wife who also gave speeches, does not want to have it reinstated. You have to be seriously ignorant to call this a RW smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:09 PM

15. Bill did not write GLB.

You know that right?

It passed with veto proof majorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:02 PM

30. 100% Pure Anadulturated Bullshit.

Now it’s true that Clinton faced an extremely hostile Republican Congress for the last six years of his presidency. But his administration actively encouraged the big deregulatory legislation, and squashed its own dissenters, like Brooksley Born, who saw disaster ahead.

Clinton would have you believe that he signed those bills because his administration was forced to by a GOP that was beholden as usual to Big Business, but then what about the deregulatory legislation he signed in 1994, before Gingrich & Co. took Congress?

Riegle-Neal hasn’t got a tenth of the press that the CMFA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley have, but it was a milestone in the creation of Too Big to Fail, allowing banks to cross state lines, effectively gutting state regulation of banking. The Christian Science Monitor that year quoted a Wall Street analyst saying that, “‘It also didn’t hurt that NationsBank president Hugh McColl has a working relationship with President Clinton or that the comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, was a successful lawyer at Covington & Burling and NationsBank had been a major client.’” Hugh McColl gave us Bank of America.

From across the pond, The Independent wrote in a piece that was prescient in more ways than one:

“In effect, Congress has said let the merger mania begin. There is virtual consensus that the legislation will allow both the big US banks and their foreign rivals in America - British banks among them - to grow much bigger.
Nor was that the only thing the banks got that year. The American Banking Association wrote about Riegle-Neal, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, and the Community Banking Development Act that “the 103rd will be remembered as the first Congress in recent memory to pass “clean” pro-banking legislation.”


Clinton, on signing Riegle-Neal, praised McColl and the head of Chase Manhattan, and said, ” It represents another example of our intent to reinvent Government by making it less regulatory and less overreaching and by shrinking it where it ought to be shrunk and reshaping it where it ought to be reshaped.”

Again, this was before the Republicans took over Congress.

In 1999, on signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, Clinton said, “This is a day we can celebrate as an American day” and that ” the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live” and “today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority” and “This is a very good day for the United States.”


http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/bill_clinton_the_republicans_m.php

In June, I attended a dinner for Bill Clinton, which was educational. Clinton spoke passionately about his foundation, about African wildlife, inequality, childhood obesity, and much else with enormous factual command, emotion, and rhetorical power. But he and I also spoke privately. I asked him about the financial crisis. He paused and then became even more soulful, thoughtful, passionate, and articulate. And then he proceeded to tell me the most amazing lies I've heard in quite a while.

For example, Mr. Clinton sorrowfully lamented his inability to stop the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned all regulation of private (OTC) derivatives trading, and thereby greatly worsened the crisis. Mr. Clinton said that he and Larry Summers had argued with Alan Greenspan, but couldn't budge him, and then Congress passed the law by a veto-proof supermajority, tying his hands. Well, actually, the reason that the law passed by that overwhelming margin was because of the Clinton Administration's strong advocacy, including Congressional testimony by Larry Summers and harsh public and private attacks on advocates of regulation by Summers and Robert Rubin.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-ferguson/hillary-clinton-documentary_b_4014792.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:15 PM

35. Jon L., Thank You... As Honest And Thoughtful People Clearly Understand Is The Clear Fact That

this history with the Clinton(s) provides strong evidence for opposition accusations of their involvement in a Quid Pro Quo... Which would be damaging to the Democratic Party on the whole, much less Hillary Clinton as a Nominee in the General Election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:17 PM

48. +10000 as usual..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:11 AM

73. So the legislation did NOT pass with a veto proof majority?!?!? tia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #73)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:15 AM

76. Clearly it did. What is BULLSHIT is claiming that Clinton didn't also support it.

Try reading and understanding my post. It really isn't any shade of grey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:18 AM

78. You didn't qualify your dismissal and if Clinton didn't support it at all it passes...

... all this time I thought it was something Clinton et al shoved through congress at the last second.

Clinton was a non factor, he could've veto'd and it would've been overturned.

Bashing with sophistry at its best

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #78)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:20 AM

79. Believe what you want. If a President opposes a bill, more nay votes tend to appear.

I also think I was rather clear about what I was calling Bullshit, so unless you didn't read anything of what I wrote (and bolded), you would know exactly what I mean. Give it a rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 06:51 AM

86. I don't laud what I want above the facts, I'll leave that up to conservatives. The facts are the ...

... the facts, the bill was going to pass with or without Clinton.

He should not have supported it but even if he didn't it was going to go through...

what's BS is intimating Clinton would've made a different support or no support

he didn't

That's a fact, not what I want

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:34 PM

17. More Pay to Play spilled across the laps of corrupt politicians.

The justification and cognitive dissonance are mind boggling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:41 PM

18. Just Da Facts Joe... Just da Facts.. And Da Facts Can Be Painful When Ya Have To Look At Them!

I did mention attacking messenger did I not? All of this business is entirely Hillary AND Bill's responsibility... They CHOSE how they would live their lives and they have no one to blame but themselves if this bizness causes them problems in their shared quest for POWER and INFLUENCE and associated remuneration...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:44 PM

21. Hey, you have no power or influence ...

... maybe you should run for something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:54 PM

29. I know the OP.

He has run for something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:27 PM

55. King of DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:00 PM

62. U.S. House Smart Guy... Biggest Opponent.. The Democratic Party

Democratic Nominee TWICE as I defeated the shills put up against me. So I understand clearly how the Money Thing works. I got "The Offer" to "Play Ball" w/ Big Pharma and unlike Bill and Hillary and virtually everyone else in elective office, I turned it down... Because "Where would my credibility be IF I did the same thing as the Republican incumbent that I was running against."

Yes, the whole political system is RIGGED just as Bernie says... I lived it! Why do I support Bernie? Because he is the ONLY candidate that I can trust. BTW, how is Hillary perceived as someone that can be trusted? Not a good number.

I recommend seeing "The Big Short." Really a documentary that has been dramatized. Read the book for even more detail...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #62)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:11 AM

82. Thanks you...for everything!

Well done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:27 PM

37. Ha!



der, da, der, der!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:52 PM

26. Fact is not RW

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:32 PM

56. I wouldnt call it Right Wing Water its more like

the truth about a "I admit I'm guilty of being a Moderate"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:12 PM

66. Oh yes, all criticism of a Clinton is rightwing by definition.

 

Makes it easy, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:38 PM

70. It's kind of the opposite of right wing...

 

Being unhappy over an extremely wealthy family using their political position and corporate connections to further build on an obscene amount of wealth has never been a big feature of the RW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #70)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:12 AM

83. At the expense of our future! Yes indeed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:12 AM

74. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:53 PM

8. How do you legislate or negotiate against your

friends and benefactors?

This is to me at the heart of substantive, rather than emotional objections to another Clinton in the White House. The wealthiest, most self-interested people and entities in the world are part of their social circle and integral to their personal financial successes, and the lifeblood of their extra-political endeavors.

When the Supreme Court said that massive campaign donations weren't a threat to democracy without a specific, "quid pro quo" exchange of money for influence, we laughed and shook our heads. Wealthy people don't give you a million dollars and expect nothing in return.

How do you, even if you want to, turn on a Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank or Morgan Stanley that like you so much they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear you speak?

Does anyone think those firms were paying to hear about how their industry has run amok, and needs to be held accountable for the trillions they pocketed from the American economy?

The Clintons are not just friendly to Wall Street -- they are in business with them. They have built their lives and their fortunes out of relationships with the people who bit the heart of middle-class wealth, chewed and swallowed it, then insisted they were doing "God's work."

Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire.
As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America's biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she's been with Wall Street.
Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.
"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has said on the campaign trail.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street/

They can do that if they want, but no one who thinks the banks and the financial industry need to be better regulated should expect that to come from one of Wall Street's best friends in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:43 PM

20. Nice Addition To The Foray... Well Described and well Put...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:28 PM

38. When the quid is that large, a quo is implied. The rules of the game. Dumbfucks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:09 AM

81. Excellent post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 01:58 PM

12. So many 'Not Hillary' Party fans use such fancy formatting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:04 PM

14. Are you trying to convey a message? Because your thought, doesn't seem to go anywhere.

"Fancy formatting" uhhh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jkbRN (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:01 PM

63. Dude don't worry about it.

They've got nothing so yea, there going to pull from somewhere where the sun doesn't shine.

Just ignore them.

It's an acquired skill to not respond to the insanity that is stupid (trust me, it's not worth it), save it for the long haul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:11 PM

16. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:21 PM

36. +2 n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:04 PM

65. oooo, it's the formatting, ouch. Minus eleventy three!!!!!!!!

Cause the other day it was about how Bernie apologized. That was an excellent waste of time cause you've got nothing on the issues.

What's next, the way he combs his hair? Pray tell, not the hair!!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:46 PM

22. I remember the shit-fit we all had about Reagan going to Japan and getting $3 million for speaking..

It was wrong, and so is Bill doing this. And Reagan's wife wasn't SOS. I hated Reagan, and still do, but this is no better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:48 PM

23. As an entertainer he's not so hot. As president he was even worse.

 

As a salesman of political expediency and triangulation he's aces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:51 PM

25. Lynyrd Skynyrd... "Ya Got That Right....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:39 PM

58. Yeah..You got that right...... Iowa

I would much rather hear this than Hillary's scream speech on Feb 1


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 02:52 PM

27. What? You expected him to help build houses for poor people?

That is soooooooooo 70's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:20 PM

50. BEST reply here....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:15 AM

77. Yeah, all the other progressive works the Clintons have done so far mean nothing at all. :rolleye:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:10 PM

34. Those speeches won't help us in November (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 03:52 PM

41. So what? Bills a gifted speaker. He's earned millions. So what?

All the people in the world that earn millions, actors, athletes, etc. not a word because we think they deserve it. But let Bill Clinton or Hillary do the same and hysteria ensues. So I will add my own blah, blah and blah. I'm happy they are successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laser102 (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:00 PM

45. woosh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laser102 (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:04 PM

46. have to agree with you Laser102 - so what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laser102 (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:22 PM

52. Oh poor, poor Bill and Hillary.. Nobode likes them.

Hi paid athletes also should be ashamed of themselves. It's just that we are discussing politics, not sports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laser102 (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:30 PM

68. actually, I DON'T think actors or athletes should make millions either. I think that is

one of the basic problems in this country.

Pay is not reflective of what you do.

Actors and physicians over in England don't get paid anywhere near the money they do here in the states.

And athletes?

Give me a break.

that is one of the reasons we have the 99% versus the 1%.

Everything is all out of whack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laser102 (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 02:15 AM

84. If Bill wants to give speeches for millions, that's great.

But if Bill gives speeches for millions, his wife should not run to be president of the United States because the money Bill earns has the appearance of a bribe.

That's the problem. Whether true or not, it appears that Bill earns his money by selling influence. Same for the speeches Hillary gives.

It's really odd that Hillary rarely draws more than a couple of hundred people for a speech and yet Bernie draws a thousand or two thousand in the same town, but we are supposed to believe that all these organizations want to pay Hillary $200 to $300 thousand per speech. She isn't that great as a speaker.

Bill is a good speaker, but there is still the appearance of corruption when he earns so much for speeches while his wife is in or is trying to be in a position with great power. That's where the problem is.

They can either collect for their speeches OR run yet again for the presidency. Even in the Senate, Hillary would not have so much power to do favors for people, so this problem is not severe and serious enough to require her to abstain from running. But running for the White House after receiving so much money from people who want favors from the White House?????? A very bad idea. Bad for America. Bad for the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #84)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 07:20 PM

90. agree. It has become so distorted.

I might be off base, but my personal perception of the Clinton's and their

"Clinton Global Initiative" is that they really look at things on a global level.

That is fine.
Go ahead, think globally and jet around the world helping the less fortunate.

But, then don't come back to America and just decide you will 'dabble' in our Domestic politics as a side hobby.

I want a passionate caring honest transparent candidate who has given their political life to the people of the United States of America.

If the Clinton's want to have influence on a global level, then go get involved in the UN or something.

Just leave the future of the US to the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 04:40 PM

59. Yawn.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 05:33 PM

69. I've decided ...

... to trash this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 12:25 AM

72. Nothing Like Sticking One's Head... IN THE SAND... Is There?

:ROFL: Lets see how Iowa Goes ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #72)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 01:13 AM

75. "Teh Clinton's are teh evil" is some really rough and ragged sand, better to avoid even walking

... on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Mon Jan 4, 2016, 04:18 AM

85. She hasn't earned it yet.

 

That comes after Inauguration Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread