http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...mpaign/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social I wonder what the hack of the Clinton Foundation will show? Get your popcorn ready Hillary backers!
Ok, I get that Breitbart probably causes a lot of Passovers, but that is just the messenger here. These were all things reported by the New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Bloomberg...hardly conservative leaning publications. They show massive corruption from the Clinton Foundation, much of it for causes most liberals would be strongly in favor of. Yet not a single response? The silence is deafening, and speaks volumes about the charges here. Maybe there simply is no response...but not even any outrage? Not from the right, but from the left?
I think most people accept that Hillary is ridiculously corrupt so more evidence of corruption is easily ignored. When you assume that she's corrupt, it's not a story.
[Premium Post] The speaking fees are just so incredibly offensive. People should not go into politics to personally enrich themselves. They should be humble servants of the people and they should try to improve the quality of life of Americans. Hillary Clinton represents everything that is wrong with politics today.
If you look deeper at these stories, you will see the following: Clinton already as SECRETARY OF STATE paved the way for Putin to own 20% of our Uranium. In return, she received 145 million in donations for her election campaign. Assume she's elected. As PRESIDENT, what will she sell then in order to assure she gets funds for her re-election campaign? Look, I'm not and have NEVER advocated Trump. But if you're voting Clinton after all the BS that's come out then either you are: 1. A real Kool-Aid drinker. 2. Dumb as a bag of rocks.
Where Amazing Happens. Before the hard evidence, it's discounted as pie in the sky or conspiracy. After the hard evidence, "we already knew, doesn't matter, everyone does it." So when does it matter? Are you waiting for a leak where Hillary says "I'm so corrupt, I'm doing all this for money!" lol Keep waiting. Consider for a moment the leaks. These are things she and her people say after being trained by PR people, advised on what to say or not say online, decades of experience, maintaining a public image, hearing about other leaks that have ruined politicians, gagging people who she can gag, locking away transcripts of speeches. These are things she says AFTER all that. It always reminds me of that Romney video leak. THAT's what these people are doing day in and day out. That's why Hillary puts a sound blocker where she speaks. That's why she won't release the transcripts. That's why she tried to hide her emails. That's why she wouldn't comment on TPP. She talks at you. She's not listening. She's not discussing. And sadly, it's true, she might be the better candidate of the two factions' candidates.
Corruption for self enrichment is bad enough. Corruption that potentially puts National Security at risk (i.e. paving the way for Russia to own 20% of our Uranium) is WAY beyond acceptable.
So you've taken Breitbart editorialized titles and made them appear to be actual titles from various publications. Mkay. Keep up the great work.
Honestly, this has always happened. The only real difference is that the Clinton's have been at the apex of power for well over 20 years so there is a lot of mileage. Politics has always been about self enrichment. If you want to change the level of self enrichment, I am all for it........ but not when the Barbarian is at the door (Trump) calling for absolutely absurd and I would argue dangerous policy changes.
Attack the messenger when you can't defend the actual news. Except this time, the messenger is all liberal leaning news sources. Hell, even the Clinton Campaign has stopped defending against it.
You didn't read the actual news and you didn't post any actual news. You read Breitbart's invented titles and peed your pants. Go read the actual news. Educate yourself. This is nothing more than Breitbart searching anything with the name Clinton and then attaching absurd titles to the stories that they probably never read themselves. Give me a break dude.
3 examples of Breitbart titles vs the actual story titles: Yeah real big difference in the headlines. Try again weaksauce.
It is becoming harder and harder to make a case for that. You have non PC things Trump has SAID, vs lots and lots of things Hillary has DONE, while in office. It is becoming very hard to make that comparison and draw the conclusion you have, objectively. Of course, these things are rarely decided objectively, or we likely wouldn't have the candidates we do.
Actually he did. But...did you? It doesn't seem like it. Making that an awfully glass house you are casting stones from.
Again though, nothing that Hillary has been shown to have done or has been accused of is out of character for her so it's not going to change anyone's mind. Accusing Hillary of corruption or incompetence is like accusing Snoop Dogg of smoking weed.
While I agree this is nothing new for this candidate, there is relatively new information here being exposed at just how far the Clintons corruption has gone. When understand she paved the way for the Russians to get 20% of our Uranium, you have to wonder...what else would she put at risk for her 2020 re-election campaign when she becomes President?
Trumpers need to realize: Trump is so damn bad, even major Republicans do not care what Clinton did anymore. This is a national emergency of everyone with a brain desperately trying to avoid a Trump presidency. Trumpers need to show that Trump is good. Saying Clinton is bad does not move any sane person.
There weren't enough people with brains and that's how we got Trump and Clinton as the major party nominees for president. If people with brains had their say, neither would be nominated. Since that didn't happen, we get to pick between a con man and a corrupt career politician that couldn't be approved to be the president's personal secretary due to her past gross incompetence. Yay.