http://correctrecord.org/praise-for-hillary-clinton/ You don't want to read the whole thing. Put it this way, I did Control Print to see how many pages it was, and it was 195 pages of people praising Hillary Clinton in various capacities, including Republicans, Democrats, and business leaders.
Supposedly she is very different when addressing small groups and in private. I have never found her to be stupid, but her political instincts have seemed suspect. Seems she may be a very good politician behind the scenes. Interestingly I heard several awashington insiders on the radio stating that Obama is working closely with Hillary and the performance of Kaine was purposely aggressive to get sound bites and the "comments" of Bill Clinton have not been slip ups but purposeful.
No, because it doesn't fit with everything else I know about him. Besides, speechwriters don't make policy.
$200,000 a speech for Hillary or Bill Clinton? That is a great deal.... Trump in the past has demanded $750,000 to $1,000,000 a speech, Condi Rice demands $200,000 a speech as well. Ronald Reagan got over $1,000,000 a speech nearly 30 years ago. George W Bush admits to making over $15,000,000 in speaking fees and that number is from 2011. Bush has spoken to a number of the same entities Clinton has. Rudy Giuliani charges $275,000 to speak to corporations. As Mark Cuban said, they (Clinton's) have been paid the going rate or less for their speeches. If it makes you feel better Mr. T and that stupid sack of garbage Sarah Palin each charge $100,000 to $150,000 a speech.
Obamacare needs an evolution, and it'll be a damn shame if it takes another 20 years for that to happen.
You're naive if you think a Republican Congress that refuses to confirm a full Supreme Court roster to stick it to a black Harvard law grad has been or is going to be legislatively intractable for any reason other than deeply rooted class ego and demographic bigotry. Once you guys wasted your majority destroying the independent counsel function, dragging us back into protracted trillion-dollar military deployments and large-scale casualties a decade after the end of the Cold War, and let the banking sector implode your only selling point was being white, male and straight.
If a school wants to pay Hillary $1,000,000 for her to come speak to the kids and tell them Drugs are Bad mmkay, then more power to her. However I really doubt she is worth a fraction of that for that kind of message. Regardless of who is speaking, I have a problem with this: Special Interest Group: Mr Politician, I would like to pay you $250,000 if you support/push my agenda. Politician: I can't do that, that is bribery. Special Interest Group: Ok, if you support/push my agenda, just stop by my office and I will pay your going 'speaking fee' rate to talk to my executives. Politician: *winks* That is called corruption. And yes, many many politicians do it. This is the only reason why Trump is in the race at this point.
This is your retort? Republicans are being obstructionist because they are racists?? You're stooping lower than Rocket River. You are starting to come off as someone with some deep seated racial issues. And if you were not blindly replying to posts, you would know I am anti-establishment at this point. Speaking against Hillary (one of those white egotistical people you seem to despise) does not make someone a Trump supporter.
OK Republicans are obstructionists because it serves their wealthy benefactors to hold on to the favorable tax and legislation laws they have bought with their astro-turf social and religious agenda. There is nothing about the GOP that is anti-establishment, they are the establishment.
What are you even talking about? The Republicans and Democrats ARE the establishment. Who suggested the Republicans were anti-establishment? Both parties are for the elite. Quit fooling yourself.
Where is the GOP's Bernie? any hint of real change or populism besides idiocracy? It's slim chance versus no chance
My retort was that they ****ed up so much since having the White House and Congress for most of the last twenty years that their only point of pride is being white and advocating policies specifically at the expenses of non-whites. "Anti-establishment" is a crock of ****. Republicans have shut down the executive's role in shaping the judiciary for the first time in modern history, the president happens to be first black one in history, and they happen to have bent over backwards to nominate an inexperienced liar who also happens to think judges should be recused from cases if they're the wrong non-white race.
That's nice and all. Do you have any evidence this happened? The Clintons helped deregulate the banks in the 90's and Hillary was a Senator from NY who represented the interests of her constituents. What makes you think the banks are paying her to push her agenda, as opposed to supporting someone who already supports their interests? This is the problem with lobbying corruption charges, unless there's evidence of a quid pro quo. Individuals, companies, and interest groups are all going to donate to candidates who they see as allies. Does the NRA buy all their congresspeople, or do they try to elect the people that support their views?
Besides, as was pointed out, she gets the same rate as other former politicians who they aren't lobbying (what is Rudy Guiliani going to do for them?). So you're suggesting they pay the same amount to just hear Guiliani speak as they do to bribe Clinton? Why is it not that they are just paying the same amount to hear each of them speak?
Trump being in the race has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton giving speeches. Trump has demanded over a million dollars a speech. Trump is the nominee because the Republican Party is disorganized **** show at the national level.
Smart and/or popular people get paid for their speeches. Nothing out of the ordinary. Unless you have evidence of corruption, you are believing in something without evidence - hence, bias and flaw. p.s. one of the best speech I heard was Powell's speech to Compaq employee probably more than a decade ago. I now can't recall why, but it was great at that time. http://amarillo.com/stories/2001/01/18/usn_millions.shtml#.V_qEIOgrKUk
This seems to be the new liberal cry. If there is no proof, then it didn't happen. (in other words, "im sorry because I got caught, not because of what I did"). Judges recuse themselves all the time, not because they are going to be partial, but because there is a potential. Using that same logic, if you can't prove a judge is going to be partial, why would he bother rescuing himself? Its called ethics. There is nothing wrong with a politician pushing what they truly believe, a la Bernie Sanders. Hillary has stood for nothing. What you are basically saying is that there is no corruption because it can't be proved. But yet you are afraid of Trump becoming president because he will be corrupt. Obvious talking-out-of-your-ass double standard.
https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041 From scrolling down the list of what she's supported, it appears she supported funding for home schooling education, less taxes for single parents, stricter requirements to teach in public school, supported recognition and commendation towards exemplary military, equal wages for minorities and women, regulation on potential drug abuse, copyright protection, improved mental health for veterans, more funding for public services like poison control, increased funding to combat diseases like ALS, a bill to help reduce infant and maternal mortality rates, crime prevention, increased health care funding for children with mortal conditions, honest labeling of tobacco use, health care with focus on prevention of disease instead of reactive healthcare, studies on carbon emission and I could go on if I continue to scroll down her page. This list of bills she supported states otherwise. You've yet to refute that popular people get paid big money to give speeches and make appearances because they're popular. I'm not trying to play naive to the idea that she's pay to play, but at it's surface she's no different from any popular person in politics or otherwise who expects to be compensated for making a public speech. As far as your point goes that liberals want proof, that's the best you got? Yes, I want proof. I'm a fool for not taking your opinion on the internet as the ultimate truth and that you are right and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.
Really? You prefer no proof? You know who regularly do not need proof of any kind? Trump. (and by extension, many on the right, including yourself now it seems). Precedent. Most judges recuse themselves when there is a conflict. Paid speeches are regular and normal. Just saying someone is paid, especially when they are paid around the same rate as others, is not a good reason for believing that corruption is involved. You need to show more and it seems you can't. This is no more than rumors. If you think no one in politic should ever be paid for speeches, then ok. But to single out Clinton without evidence - well, that's where bias comes in. Trump is disqualified not because of a potential for corruption, because he's unfit in every single way to be President. Corruption need not be consider that much with him. Oh, Clinton has stand for things all her lives since she started poliitic. You remember her audacity to ask for universal health care? You just hate liberal too much to see.
