Great News, Democrats: Defiant Hillary To Dems: ‘I’m Not Going Anywhere’

[BluesLegend]

You are upset because I'm breaking down your liberal view of the world. Lets recap, you were advocating for legalizing drugs. I pointed out the victims of drug abusers. You challenged that, bringing up Washington State. I informed you National Geographic in fact filmed a documentary on drug trafficking in Washington state by illegals. This burst your liberal bubble and right on cue you went into denial and demanded links. Here this is for you...

You saying that you saw a National Geographic documentary about drug trafficking in Washington doesn't prove anything.

LOL do you know what a documentary is? I'm thinking of a word, its denial.

I posted two documentaries by National Geographic that showed the overwhelming benefits that legalizing MJ had on a variety of communities. I put them in the thread so you could easily click and watch. So where does that put us?

Your memory is about 2 minutes long so I'll remind you, I said I'm fine with legalizing drugs...so long as there are severe penalties for drug abusers robbing to support their habit or driving impaired killing/maiming innocent citizens. Based on your posts you want drugs legalized without any penalties, or at least you have not countered my 20 years imprisonment proposal. SEVERE penalties the sort that will stop most drug abusers from committing crimes and quickly remove from society those who will.

Im fine with penalties for any kind of illegal acts, people should be held accountable. I don't see the need to do 20 years in prison and ruin peoples lives. I think we can be smarter about how we punish people but thats a different discussion. So its settled Blues supports legalizing drugs but wants harsher punishments for drug related crimes. Now we can move on, that was painful!

Very harsh. It wasn't painful you just have to pay attention.

 

[Slade3200]

You saying that you saw a National Geographic documentary about drug trafficking in Washington doesn't prove anything.

LOL do you know what a documentary is? I'm thinking of a word, its denial.

I posted two documentaries by National Geographic that showed the overwhelming benefits that legalizing MJ had on a variety of communities. I put them in the thread so you could easily click and watch. So where does that put us?

Your memory is about 2 minutes long so I'll remind you, I said I'm fine with legalizing drugs...so long as there are severe penalties for drug abusers robbing to support their habit or driving impaired killing/maiming innocent citizens. Based on your posts you want drugs legalized without any penalties, or at least you have not countered my 20 years imprisonment proposal. SEVERE penalties the sort that will stop most drug abusers from committing crimes and quickly remove from society those who will.

Im fine with penalties for any kind of illegal acts, people should be held accountable. I don't see the need to do 20 years in prison and ruin peoples lives. I think we can be smarter about how we punish people but thats a different discussion. So its settled Blues supports legalizing drugs but wants harsher punishments for drug related crimes. Now we can move on, that was painful!

Very harsh. It wasn't painful you just have to pay attention.

Don't play games Blues, You were making a point about throwing substance abusers in jail. You were not advocating for legalization. The whole conversation we had following that post of yours was you arguing that legalization was a bad thing for society... Hence your want for HARSH punishments. You've tried pretty hard to wiggle around this conversation so I figured i'd let you wiggle free... Your games are starting to bore me.

 

[BluesLegend]

LOL do you know what a documentary is? I'm thinking of a word, its denial.

I posted two documentaries by National Geographic that showed the overwhelming benefits that legalizing MJ had on a variety of communities. I put them in the thread so you could easily click and watch. So where does that put us?

Your memory is about 2 minutes long so I'll remind you, I said I'm fine with legalizing drugs...so long as there are severe penalties for drug abusers robbing to support their habit or driving impaired killing/maiming innocent citizens. Based on your posts you want drugs legalized without any penalties, or at least you have not countered my 20 years imprisonment proposal. SEVERE penalties the sort that will stop most drug abusers from committing crimes and quickly remove from society those who will.

Im fine with penalties for any kind of illegal acts, people should be held accountable. I don't see the need to do 20 years in prison and ruin peoples lives. I think we can be smarter about how we punish people but thats a different discussion. So its settled Blues supports legalizing drugs but wants harsher punishments for drug related crimes. Now we can move on, that was painful!

Very harsh. It wasn't painful you just have to pay attention.

Don't play games Blues, You were making a point about throwing substance abusers in jail. You were not advocating for legalization. The whole conversation we had following that post of yours was you arguing that legalization was a bad thing for society... Hence your want for HARSH punishments. You've tried pretty hard to wiggle around this conversation so I figured i'd let you wiggle free... Your games are starting to bore me.

Wait, you can read minds holy crap! What part of I'm fine with legalizing drugs so long as there are severe penalties led you to believe I meant just the opposite? You know, never mind

 

[tycho1572]

That woman is now their worst nightmare. lol

They have no one but themselves to blame.

 

[Slade3200]

I posted two documentaries by National Geographic that showed the overwhelming benefits that legalizing MJ had on a variety of communities. I put them in the thread so you could easily click and watch. So where does that put us?

Your memory is about 2 minutes long so I'll remind you, I said I'm fine with legalizing drugs...so long as there are severe penalties for drug abusers robbing to support their habit or driving impaired killing/maiming innocent citizens. Based on your posts you want drugs legalized without any penalties, or at least you have not countered my 20 years imprisonment proposal. SEVERE penalties the sort that will stop most drug abusers from committing crimes and quickly remove from society those who will.

Im fine with penalties for any kind of illegal acts, people should be held accountable. I don't see the need to do 20 years in prison and ruin peoples lives. I think we can be smarter about how we punish people but thats a different discussion. So its settled Blues supports legalizing drugs but wants harsher punishments for drug related crimes. Now we can move on, that was painful!

Very harsh. It wasn't painful you just have to pay attention.

Don't play games Blues, You were making a point about throwing substance abusers in jail. You were not advocating for legalization. The whole conversation we had following that post of yours was you arguing that legalization was a bad thing for society... Hence your want for HARSH punishments. You've tried pretty hard to wiggle around this conversation so I figured i'd let you wiggle free... Your games are starting to bore me.

Wait, you can read minds holy crap! What part of I'm fine with legalizing drugs so long as there are severe penalties led you to believe I meant just the opposite? You know, never mind

The multiple posts that you made around that statement that incorrectly characterized drug legalization as something that would be a detriment to our society. No mind reading, you made your ignorant positions pretty clear. You even have a National Geographic Documentary stored in a secret hiding place that backs you up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

you cant take responsibility with all the caveats shes listed. its one or the other, not both as that is just bitter bullshit.

Are you kidding? There are so many factors that are involved in presidential campaigns. There can be dozens of different reasons that effected the outcome of the election

Yeah, just her election of course.

I don't keep up with Democrats, but how many other Democrat presidential candidates that lost wrote a Fn book on it? I mean for crying out loud. She really thinks she is royalty to the point she needs to explain herself as if people were holding their breath dying to hear her words of wisdom about losing an election. She's so arrogant thinking that people didn't move on with their lives; they are still grieving. The reality is that the Clinton's are still trying to suck every nickel and dime from their followers as they can.

It sounds like you miss the point completely. She was the first women nominated for POTUS in our countries history. Like her or not, that is historic and a big deal to many people. She also had more people vote for her than voted in Bush and more than voted for Trump. Thats a lot of people. Getting the inside scoop on the experience from her perspective is fascinating for many many people. I understand your annoyance since you are obviously not a fan, but you don't have to pretend that this is a sore loser money making scheme. You're smarted than that Ray. Look at the bigger picture here.

I actually do believe it's a money making scheme just like all their others.

After she lost, her speaking engagements went from 250K to 2K per speech.

Is that another Rush stat?

What has she or her husband done that paid them any kind of money outside of her book.......and I don't know what the hell they gave her.

Nobody can prove buying influence, but it certainly can be obvious.

After all, when Hil-Liar was running for President, she couldn't pack a high school gymnasium to listen to her speak. So how was she able to make 250K for a 20 minute speech at other places????

However since she no longer has power, and if you can find where she or her husband make any kind of money in the future, please let me know. But what I foresee in the future is a silent Clinton couple.

 

[Slade3200]

Are you kidding? There are so many factors that are involved in presidential campaigns. There can be dozens of different reasons that effected the outcome of the election

Yeah, just her election of course.

I don't keep up with Democrats, but how many other Democrat presidential candidates that lost wrote a Fn book on it? I mean for crying out loud. She really thinks she is royalty to the point she needs to explain herself as if people were holding their breath dying to hear her words of wisdom about losing an election. She's so arrogant thinking that people didn't move on with their lives; they are still grieving. The reality is that the Clinton's are still trying to suck every nickel and dime from their followers as they can.

It sounds like you miss the point completely. She was the first women nominated for POTUS in our countries history. Like her or not, that is historic and a big deal to many people. She also had more people vote for her than voted in Bush and more than voted for Trump. Thats a lot of people. Getting the inside scoop on the experience from her perspective is fascinating for many many people. I understand your annoyance since you are obviously not a fan, but you don't have to pretend that this is a sore loser money making scheme. You're smarted than that Ray. Look at the bigger picture here.

I actually do believe it's a money making scheme just like all their others.

After she lost, her speaking engagements went from 250K to 2K per speech.

Is that another Rush stat?

What has she or her husband done that paid them any kind of money outside of her book.......and I don't know what the hell they gave her.

Nobody can prove buying influence, but it certainly can be obvious.

After all, when Hil-Liar was running for President, she couldn't pack a high school gymnasium to listen to her speak. So how was she able to make 250K for a 20 minute speech at other places????

However since she no longer has power, and if you can find where she or her husband make any kind of money in the future, please let me know. But what I foresee in the future is a silent Clinton couple.

Panetta is from my home town and he makes 40K an hour for speeches and thats for small local businesses. It doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary made 250K for a speech.

Billy makes between 250K-500K per speech and got paid 750K for a speech in Hong Kong in 2011. Bush makes around 175K per speech and has grossed over 30 million in speeches.

And the Topper... Trump made 3 million for two speeches that he made at the Learning Annex in 2006 and 2007

If you are looking for other sources of income for Hill, check out her tax returns, remember she actually disclosed them ;-)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, just her election of course.

I don't keep up with Democrats, but how many other Democrat presidential candidates that lost wrote a Fn book on it? I mean for crying out loud. She really thinks she is royalty to the point she needs to explain herself as if people were holding their breath dying to hear her words of wisdom about losing an election. She's so arrogant thinking that people didn't move on with their lives; they are still grieving. The reality is that the Clinton's are still trying to suck every nickel and dime from their followers as they can.

It sounds like you miss the point completely. She was the first women nominated for POTUS in our countries history. Like her or not, that is historic and a big deal to many people. She also had more people vote for her than voted in Bush and more than voted for Trump. Thats a lot of people. Getting the inside scoop on the experience from her perspective is fascinating for many many people. I understand your annoyance since you are obviously not a fan, but you don't have to pretend that this is a sore loser money making scheme. You're smarted than that Ray. Look at the bigger picture here.

I actually do believe it's a money making scheme just like all their others.

After she lost, her speaking engagements went from 250K to 2K per speech.

Is that another Rush stat?

What has she or her husband done that paid them any kind of money outside of her book.......and I don't know what the hell they gave her.

Nobody can prove buying influence, but it certainly can be obvious.

After all, when Hil-Liar was running for President, she couldn't pack a high school gymnasium to listen to her speak. So how was she able to make 250K for a 20 minute speech at other places????

However since she no longer has power, and if you can find where she or her husband make any kind of money in the future, please let me know. But what I foresee in the future is a silent Clinton couple.

Panetta is from my home town and he makes 40K an hour for speeches and thats for small local businesses. It doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary made 250K for a speech.

Billy makes between 250K-500K per speech and got paid 750K for a speech in Hong Kong in 2011. Bush makes around 175K per speech and has grossed over 30 million in speeches.

And the Topper... Trump made 3 million for two speeches that he made at the Learning Annex in 2006 and 2007

If you are looking for other sources of income for Hill, check out her tax returns, remember she actually disclosed them ;-)

Panetta didn't have any political power to make decisions that helped his supporters. Trump also didn't have any political influence in 2007. If Hil-Liar just retried after losing to Obama, Bill would not have made 100K per speech yet alone 500K. That's kind of the point.

 

[Slade3200]

It sounds like you miss the point completely. She was the first women nominated for POTUS in our countries history. Like her or not, that is historic and a big deal to many people. She also had more people vote for her than voted in Bush and more than voted for Trump. Thats a lot of people. Getting the inside scoop on the experience from her perspective is fascinating for many many people. I understand your annoyance since you are obviously not a fan, but you don't have to pretend that this is a sore loser money making scheme. You're smarted than that Ray. Look at the bigger picture here.

I actually do believe it's a money making scheme just like all their others.

After she lost, her speaking engagements went from 250K to 2K per speech.

Is that another Rush stat?

What has she or her husband done that paid them any kind of money outside of her book.......and I don't know what the hell they gave her.

Nobody can prove buying influence, but it certainly can be obvious.

After all, when Hil-Liar was running for President, she couldn't pack a high school gymnasium to listen to her speak. So how was she able to make 250K for a 20 minute speech at other places????

However since she no longer has power, and if you can find where she or her husband make any kind of money in the future, please let me know. But what I foresee in the future is a silent Clinton couple.

Panetta is from my home town and he makes 40K an hour for speeches and thats for small local businesses. It doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary made 250K for a speech.

Billy makes between 250K-500K per speech and got paid 750K for a speech in Hong Kong in 2011. Bush makes around 175K per speech and has grossed over 30 million in speeches.

And the Topper... Trump made 3 million for two speeches that he made at the Learning Annex in 2006 and 2007

If you are looking for other sources of income for Hill, check out her tax returns, remember she actually disclosed them ;-)

Panetta didn't have any political power to make decisions that helped his supporters. Trump also didn't have any political influence in 2007. If Hil-Liar just retried after losing to Obama, Bill would not have made 100K per speech yet alone 500K. That's kind of the point.

You asked how she was able to make 250K per speech and I just showed how much people, both political and non political made. Fact is people get paid a buttload to make speeches. no need to make more out of it than there needs to be

 

[JustAnotherNut]

What Awesome News for the Democratic party and their 2020 Presidential Hopes:

HILLARY CLINTON: 'I have the experience, I have the insight, I have the scars...I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE'

Defiant Hillary To Dems: ‘I’m Not Going Anywhere’

"Former secretary of state and twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a message for Democrats who want her to fade into the background: she’s not going anywhere.

Clinton made that clear in an interview promoting her book with NPR’s Rachel Martin, who asked Clinton if she has “reconciled that, that people might not want you around as the party steps forward?”

“Well, they don’t have to buy my book, and they can turn off the radio when they hear me talking. I’m not going anywhere,” Clinton said.

“I have the experience, I have the insight, I have the scars that I think give me not only the right, but the responsibility to speak out.

And a lot of people are already calling asking for my help and my support. I’ve started a new organization called 'Onward Together'."
- 'Onward'....sounds a lot like Barry's 'Forward', doesn't it?

So, to the utter disappointment of many snowflakes across the country - especially on this board - Hillary remains a current topic of conversation because she simply refuses to go away.

Everyone and everything else is to blame for her 2016 loss, her SECOND loss.
She will NOT go away
She IS the future of the Democratic Party.
2020 is HER TURN....AGAIN. (3rd time is the charm)...

....whether you like it or not (AGAIN)!


(You know, snowflakes, had Obama, his administration, and the media NOT protected her from indictment and prosecution your troubles would be over right now, you would be freed from Hillary, and you could finally be moving forward towards 2020 with your eye on fresher, younger, less criminal candidates....

...instead, sheeeeeeee's baaaaaaaaack! )

You haven't been paying very close attention have you. She has released many statements from her book that takes personal responsibility for the loss, opposers just like to focus on the finger pointing excuses.... but don't pretend like thats the whole story. She also said straight up that she is not going to run for office in 2020. Another false assumption in your OP. Nice try though.

Hillary Clinton will not run for president in 2020: Robert Wolf

When & where has she taken 'personal responsibility' for her November loss? All anyone has heard from her is to blame others.

Such as..

Trump
Podesta
Russia
Weiner
Sanders
Obama

and I'm sure there is more. But not once has anyone heard her say that SHE did anything wrong


And how many times has she said she would NOT run for President, but did anyway?

2012...

Hillary Clinton: Repeats 'no' for 2016, can't stand 'whining' about life choices

In an interview with Marie Claire magazine, published Thursday, Clinton insists she's done with politics for good. When asked by writer Ayalet Waldman if she will run again for president, she laughed.
"No, I'm not," she said.


and 2009

Hillary Clinton says she won't run for president again


"I have been on this high wire of national and international politics and leadership for 20 years," Clinton said. "It has been an absolutely extraordinary personal honor and experience. But I really want to just have my own time back. I want to just be my own person. I'm looking forward to that."

That's because all you do is listen to right wing talking points that cherry pick the things they can easily attack. The left does the same thing to Trump and y'all call it fake news.

Hillary takes responsibility for the Wall Street speeches, email server, not connecting with voters about their economic struggles, her comment about putting coal miners out of work etc... that work for ya?

7 talking points about Hillary Clinton's new book, 'What Happened'

These are not conservative/Republican sources........

Hillary Clinton blames Comey, Wikileaks for 2016 election loss

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss - CNNPolitics

Hillary Clinton blames FBI director, WikiLeaks for her election loss


yet she is still blaming others for the loss.

And she has said before that she wouldn't run again, but did.

Fox, Breitbart, infowars, conservative radio like Levin/Rush. You don't call those conservative/Republican sources??

I didn't deny that she pointed the finger and place blame on others. My point was that she did take personal responsibility for other areas that you seem to want to ignore. I guess go with the narrative that makes her look as bad as possible. Damn reality, right?

None of the sources I linked to are conservative or Republican news sources. They are from NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. You insinuated my sources were from Fox, Breitbart, infowars and conservative radio like Levin/Rush.....yes those are conservative sources, but not the ones I linked to.

Yes, she did admit to many errors in the choices she made, but there is nothing that she's said so far that actually accepted the responsibility for her loss of the election.........there is a big difference there...but I guess that could be left to interpretation, or actually read one or two of the links provided.


And as for my point about the polls in your other comment......up until November 8, 2016 all televised polls showed Clinton so far ahead there shouldn't have been any question as to the winner.......your comment previous mentioned about how 'the numbers don't lie'......I was pointing out that yes, actually they do...if you're so deceived to believe your liberal news sources & their polls. Those same mainstream media sources just keep bringing up more 'stories' that they have to retract because they are fake.......fake news, fake polls,


Selective blindness is a reality of liberals.

 

[Slade3200]

You haven't been paying very close attention have you. She has released many statements from her book that takes personal responsibility for the loss, opposers just like to focus on the finger pointing excuses.... but don't pretend like thats the whole story. She also said straight up that she is not going to run for office in 2020. Another false assumption in your OP. Nice try though.

Hillary Clinton will not run for president in 2020: Robert Wolf

When & where has she taken 'personal responsibility' for her November loss? All anyone has heard from her is to blame others.

Such as..

Trump
Podesta
Russia
Weiner
Sanders
Obama

and I'm sure there is more. But not once has anyone heard her say that SHE did anything wrong


And how many times has she said she would NOT run for President, but did anyway?

2012...

Hillary Clinton: Repeats 'no' for 2016, can't stand 'whining' about life choices

In an interview with Marie Claire magazine, published Thursday, Clinton insists she's done with politics for good. When asked by writer Ayalet Waldman if she will run again for president, she laughed.
"No, I'm not," she said.


and 2009

Hillary Clinton says she won't run for president again


"I have been on this high wire of national and international politics and leadership for 20 years," Clinton said. "It has been an absolutely extraordinary personal honor and experience. But I really want to just have my own time back. I want to just be my own person. I'm looking forward to that."

That's because all you do is listen to right wing talking points that cherry pick the things they can easily attack. The left does the same thing to Trump and y'all call it fake news.

Hillary takes responsibility for the Wall Street speeches, email server, not connecting with voters about their economic struggles, her comment about putting coal miners out of work etc... that work for ya?

7 talking points about Hillary Clinton's new book, 'What Happened'

These are not conservative/Republican sources........

Hillary Clinton blames Comey, Wikileaks for 2016 election loss

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss - CNNPolitics

Hillary Clinton blames FBI director, WikiLeaks for her election loss


yet she is still blaming others for the loss.

And she has said before that she wouldn't run again, but did.

Fox, Breitbart, infowars, conservative radio like Levin/Rush. You don't call those conservative/Republican sources??

I didn't deny that she pointed the finger and place blame on others. My point was that she did take personal responsibility for other areas that you seem to want to ignore. I guess go with the narrative that makes her look as bad as possible. Damn reality, right?

None of the sources I linked to are conservative or Republican news sources. They are from NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. You insinuated my sources were from Fox, Breitbart, infowars and conservative radio like Levin/Rush.....yes those are conservative sources, but not the ones I linked to.

Yes, she did admit to many errors in the choices she made, but there is nothing that she's said so far that actually accepted the responsibility for her loss of the election.........there is a big difference there...but I guess that could be left to interpretation, or actually read one or two of the links provided.


And as for my point about the polls in your other comment......up until November 8, 2016 all televised polls showed Clinton so far ahead there shouldn't have been any question as to the winner.......your comment previous mentioned about how 'the numbers don't lie'......I was pointing out that yes, actually they do...if you're so deceived to believe your liberal news sources & their polls. Those same mainstream media sources just keep bringing up more 'stories' that they have to retract because they are fake.......fake news, fake polls,


Selective blindness is a reality of liberals.

Real Clear Politics averaged all the polls and had Clinton winning the vote by 3.3%. She won by 2.2%. The electoral map prediction had only one surprise in Wisconsin which was marked as leaning left. The rest were all toss up swing states. Clinton was definitely favored in the polls but all was within the margin of error. They weren't as far off as you are making it seem.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

 

[JustAnotherNut]

When & where has she taken 'personal responsibility' for her November loss? All anyone has heard from her is to blame others.

Such as..

Trump
Podesta
Russia
Weiner
Sanders
Obama

and I'm sure there is more. But not once has anyone heard her say that SHE did anything wrong


And how many times has she said she would NOT run for President, but did anyway?

2012...

Hillary Clinton: Repeats 'no' for 2016, can't stand 'whining' about life choices

In an interview with Marie Claire magazine, published Thursday, Clinton insists she's done with politics for good. When asked by writer Ayalet Waldman if she will run again for president, she laughed.
"No, I'm not," she said.


and 2009

Hillary Clinton says she won't run for president again


"I have been on this high wire of national and international politics and leadership for 20 years," Clinton said. "It has been an absolutely extraordinary personal honor and experience. But I really want to just have my own time back. I want to just be my own person. I'm looking forward to that."

That's because all you do is listen to right wing talking points that cherry pick the things they can easily attack. The left does the same thing to Trump and y'all call it fake news.

Hillary takes responsibility for the Wall Street speeches, email server, not connecting with voters about their economic struggles, her comment about putting coal miners out of work etc... that work for ya?

7 talking points about Hillary Clinton's new book, 'What Happened'

These are not conservative/Republican sources........

Hillary Clinton blames Comey, Wikileaks for 2016 election loss

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss - CNNPolitics

Hillary Clinton blames FBI director, WikiLeaks for her election loss


yet she is still blaming others for the loss.

And she has said before that she wouldn't run again, but did.

Fox, Breitbart, infowars, conservative radio like Levin/Rush. You don't call those conservative/Republican sources??

I didn't deny that she pointed the finger and place blame on others. My point was that she did take personal responsibility for other areas that you seem to want to ignore. I guess go with the narrative that makes her look as bad as possible. Damn reality, right?

None of the sources I linked to are conservative or Republican news sources. They are from NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. You insinuated my sources were from Fox, Breitbart, infowars and conservative radio like Levin/Rush.....yes those are conservative sources, but not the ones I linked to.

Yes, she did admit to many errors in the choices she made, but there is nothing that she's said so far that actually accepted the responsibility for her loss of the election.........there is a big difference there...but I guess that could be left to interpretation, or actually read one or two of the links provided.


And as for my point about the polls in your other comment......up until November 8, 2016 all televised polls showed Clinton so far ahead there shouldn't have been any question as to the winner.......your comment previous mentioned about how 'the numbers don't lie'......I was pointing out that yes, actually they do...if you're so deceived to believe your liberal news sources & their polls. Those same mainstream media sources just keep bringing up more 'stories' that they have to retract because they are fake.......fake news, fake polls,


Selective blindness is a reality of liberals.

Real Clear Politics averaged all the polls and had Clinton winning the vote by 3.3%. She won by 2.2%. The electoral map prediction had only one surprise in Wisconsin which was marked as leaning left. The rest were all toss up swing states. Clinton was definitely favored in the polls but all was within the margin of error. They weren't as far off as you are making it seem.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Averaged all the polls??? Of course that would change it. Here is a list of polls going back to October 26th. As you scroll thru it some do show Trump ahead by a few points, many have them within just a few points either way, and some show some much higher numbers.....all from the same source you provided.


RealClearPolitics - 2017 Election 2016 Presidential Polls


The most of my exposure was the many tv news sources, that did show a wider separation

 

[francoHFW]

Stay strong Hillary! Don't let the Dems get away with their War on Women -- and Seniors!

She beat both Trump and Bernie, Dems would be fools not to run her again in 2020

Not a bad idea. Just to prove all the character assassination wrong and prove that dupes are so wrong. And that fox rush and the GOP are totally fos.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I actually do believe it's a money making scheme just like all their others.

After she lost, her speaking engagements went from 250K to 2K per speech.

Is that another Rush stat?

What has she or her husband done that paid them any kind of money outside of her book.......and I don't know what the hell they gave her.

Nobody can prove buying influence, but it certainly can be obvious.

After all, when Hil-Liar was running for President, she couldn't pack a high school gymnasium to listen to her speak. So how was she able to make 250K for a 20 minute speech at other places????

However since she no longer has power, and if you can find where she or her husband make any kind of money in the future, please let me know. But what I foresee in the future is a silent Clinton couple.

Panetta is from my home town and he makes 40K an hour for speeches and thats for small local businesses. It doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary made 250K for a speech.

Billy makes between 250K-500K per speech and got paid 750K for a speech in Hong Kong in 2011. Bush makes around 175K per speech and has grossed over 30 million in speeches.

And the Topper... Trump made 3 million for two speeches that he made at the Learning Annex in 2006 and 2007

If you are looking for other sources of income for Hill, check out her tax returns, remember she actually disclosed them ;-)

Panetta didn't have any political power to make decisions that helped his supporters. Trump also didn't have any political influence in 2007. If Hil-Liar just retried after losing to Obama, Bill would not have made 100K per speech yet alone 500K. That's kind of the point.

You asked how she was able to make 250K per speech and I just showed how much people, both political and non political made. Fact is people get paid a buttload to make speeches. no need to make more out of it than there needs to be

People do make good money making speeches when they are still in the limelight or just out of it. But Bill making that kind of loot after being out of office for over 10 years? Come on now. People donating hoards of money to the Clinton foundation because Bill and Hillary are loved so much?

I wish there was such a thing as a crystal ball, because then I could show you neither of those two would get hired for anything if Hillary wasn't still in the loop and projected taking the presidency one day. You can live in that make believe world of yours if you like, the rest of us understand how the game of politics is played. But like I said, watch and see what kind of money Bill gets now that Hillary was soundly defeated; that is unless she makes a statement she might run again. But like she said (to keep those speaking fees up) I'm not going anywhere.

 

[easyt65]

When & where has she taken 'personal responsibility' for her November loss? All anyone has heard from her is to blame others.

Such as..

Trump
Podesta
Russia
Weiner
Sanders
Obama

and I'm sure there is more. But not once has anyone heard her say that SHE did anything wrong


And how many times has she said she would NOT run for President, but did anyway?

2012...

Hillary Clinton: Repeats 'no' for 2016, can't stand 'whining' about life choices

In an interview with Marie Claire magazine, published Thursday, Clinton insists she's done with politics for good. When asked by writer Ayalet Waldman if she will run again for president, she laughed.
"No, I'm not," she said.


and 2009

Hillary Clinton says she won't run for president again


"I have been on this high wire of national and international politics and leadership for 20 years," Clinton said. "It has been an absolutely extraordinary personal honor and experience. But I really want to just have my own time back. I want to just be my own person. I'm looking forward to that."

That's because all you do is listen to right wing talking points that cherry pick the things they can easily attack. The left does the same thing to Trump and y'all call it fake news.

Hillary takes responsibility for the Wall Street speeches, email server, not connecting with voters about their economic struggles, her comment about putting coal miners out of work etc... that work for ya?

7 talking points about Hillary Clinton's new book, 'What Happened'

These are not conservative/Republican sources........

Hillary Clinton blames Comey, Wikileaks for 2016 election loss

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss - CNNPolitics

Hillary Clinton blames FBI director, WikiLeaks for her election loss


yet she is still blaming others for the loss.

And she has said before that she wouldn't run again, but did.

Fox, Breitbart, infowars, conservative radio like Levin/Rush. You don't call those conservative/Republican sources??

I didn't deny that she pointed the finger and place blame on others. My point was that she did take personal responsibility for other areas that you seem to want to ignore. I guess go with the narrative that makes her look as bad as possible. Damn reality, right?

None of the sources I linked to are conservative or Republican news sources. They are from NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. You insinuated my sources were from Fox, Breitbart, infowars and conservative radio like Levin/Rush.....yes those are conservative sources, but not the ones I linked to.

Yes, she did admit to many errors in the choices she made, but there is nothing that she's said so far that actually accepted the responsibility for her loss of the election.........there is a big difference there...but I guess that could be left to interpretation, or actually read one or two of the links provided.


And as for my point about the polls in your other comment......up until November 8, 2016 all televised polls showed Clinton so far ahead there shouldn't have been any question as to the winner.......your comment previous mentioned about how 'the numbers don't lie'......I was pointing out that yes, actually they do...if you're so deceived to believe your liberal news sources & their polls. Those same mainstream media sources just keep bringing up more 'stories' that they have to retract because they are fake.......fake news, fake polls,


Selective blindness is a reality of liberals.

Real Clear Politics averaged all the polls and had Clinton winning the vote by 3.3%. She won by 2.2%. The electoral map prediction had only one surprise in Wisconsin which was marked as leaning left. The rest were all toss up swing states. Clinton was definitely favored in the polls but all was within the margin of error. They weren't as far off as you are making it seem.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Winning by 3.3%? I remember libs predicting Hillary would win in a 'landslide'. 'Within the margin of error' and '3.3%' is NOT the 'landslide' predicted at the time.

 

[Slade3200]

Is that another Rush stat?

What has she or her husband done that paid them any kind of money outside of her book.......and I don't know what the hell they gave her.

Nobody can prove buying influence, but it certainly can be obvious.

After all, when Hil-Liar was running for President, she couldn't pack a high school gymnasium to listen to her speak. So how was she able to make 250K for a 20 minute speech at other places????

However since she no longer has power, and if you can find where she or her husband make any kind of money in the future, please let me know. But what I foresee in the future is a silent Clinton couple.

Panetta is from my home town and he makes 40K an hour for speeches and thats for small local businesses. It doesn't surprise me at all that Hillary made 250K for a speech.

Billy makes between 250K-500K per speech and got paid 750K for a speech in Hong Kong in 2011. Bush makes around 175K per speech and has grossed over 30 million in speeches.

And the Topper... Trump made 3 million for two speeches that he made at the Learning Annex in 2006 and 2007

If you are looking for other sources of income for Hill, check out her tax returns, remember she actually disclosed them ;-)

Panetta didn't have any political power to make decisions that helped his supporters. Trump also didn't have any political influence in 2007. If Hil-Liar just retried after losing to Obama, Bill would not have made 100K per speech yet alone 500K. That's kind of the point.

You asked how she was able to make 250K per speech and I just showed how much people, both political and non political made. Fact is people get paid a buttload to make speeches. no need to make more out of it than there needs to be

People do make good money making speeches when they are still in the limelight or just out of it. But Bill making that kind of loot after being out of office for over 10 years? Come on now. People donating hoards of money to the Clinton foundation because Bill and Hillary are loved so much?

I wish there was such a thing as a crystal ball, because then I could show you neither of those two would get hired for anything if Hillary wasn't still in the loop and projected taking the presidency one day. You can live in that make believe world of yours if you like, the rest of us understand how the game of politics is played. But like I said, watch and see what kind of money Bill gets now that Hillary was soundly defeated; that is unless she makes a statement she might run again. But like she said (to keep those speaking fees up) I'm not going anywhere.

I bet Obama makes more then all of them. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Slade3200]

That's because all you do is listen to right wing talking points that cherry pick the things they can easily attack. The left does the same thing to Trump and y'all call it fake news.

Hillary takes responsibility for the Wall Street speeches, email server, not connecting with voters about their economic struggles, her comment about putting coal miners out of work etc... that work for ya?

7 talking points about Hillary Clinton's new book, 'What Happened'

These are not conservative/Republican sources........

Hillary Clinton blames Comey, Wikileaks for 2016 election loss

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss - CNNPolitics

Hillary Clinton blames FBI director, WikiLeaks for her election loss


yet she is still blaming others for the loss.

And she has said before that she wouldn't run again, but did.

Fox, Breitbart, infowars, conservative radio like Levin/Rush. You don't call those conservative/Republican sources??

I didn't deny that she pointed the finger and place blame on others. My point was that she did take personal responsibility for other areas that you seem to want to ignore. I guess go with the narrative that makes her look as bad as possible. Damn reality, right?

None of the sources I linked to are conservative or Republican news sources. They are from NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. You insinuated my sources were from Fox, Breitbart, infowars and conservative radio like Levin/Rush.....yes those are conservative sources, but not the ones I linked to.

Yes, she did admit to many errors in the choices she made, but there is nothing that she's said so far that actually accepted the responsibility for her loss of the election.........there is a big difference there...but I guess that could be left to interpretation, or actually read one or two of the links provided.


And as for my point about the polls in your other comment......up until November 8, 2016 all televised polls showed Clinton so far ahead there shouldn't have been any question as to the winner.......your comment previous mentioned about how 'the numbers don't lie'......I was pointing out that yes, actually they do...if you're so deceived to believe your liberal news sources & their polls. Those same mainstream media sources just keep bringing up more 'stories' that they have to retract because they are fake.......fake news, fake polls,


Selective blindness is a reality of liberals.

Real Clear Politics averaged all the polls and had Clinton winning the vote by 3.3%. She won by 2.2%. The electoral map prediction had only one surprise in Wisconsin which was marked as leaning left. The rest were all toss up swing states. Clinton was definitely favored in the polls but all was within the margin of error. They weren't as far off as you are making it seem.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Averaged all the polls??? Of course that would change it. Here is a list of polls going back to October 26th. As you scroll thru it some do show Trump ahead by a few points, many have them within just a few points either way, and some show some much higher numbers.....all from the same source you provided.


RealClearPolitics - 2017 Election 2016 Presidential Polls


The most of my exposure was the many tv news sources, that did show a wider separation

That's the same list I linked to. My list just showed a summary with averages compared to the actual results. The difference was about 1%

 

[Slade3200]

That's because all you do is listen to right wing talking points that cherry pick the things they can easily attack. The left does the same thing to Trump and y'all call it fake news.

Hillary takes responsibility for the Wall Street speeches, email server, not connecting with voters about their economic struggles, her comment about putting coal miners out of work etc... that work for ya?

7 talking points about Hillary Clinton's new book, 'What Happened'

These are not conservative/Republican sources........

Hillary Clinton blames Comey, Wikileaks for 2016 election loss

Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss

Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss - CNNPolitics

Hillary Clinton blames FBI director, WikiLeaks for her election loss


yet she is still blaming others for the loss.

And she has said before that she wouldn't run again, but did.

Fox, Breitbart, infowars, conservative radio like Levin/Rush. You don't call those conservative/Republican sources??

I didn't deny that she pointed the finger and place blame on others. My point was that she did take personal responsibility for other areas that you seem to want to ignore. I guess go with the narrative that makes her look as bad as possible. Damn reality, right?

None of the sources I linked to are conservative or Republican news sources. They are from NYT, USA Today, CNN, etc. You insinuated my sources were from Fox, Breitbart, infowars and conservative radio like Levin/Rush.....yes those are conservative sources, but not the ones I linked to.

Yes, she did admit to many errors in the choices she made, but there is nothing that she's said so far that actually accepted the responsibility for her loss of the election.........there is a big difference there...but I guess that could be left to interpretation, or actually read one or two of the links provided.


And as for my point about the polls in your other comment......up until November 8, 2016 all televised polls showed Clinton so far ahead there shouldn't have been any question as to the winner.......your comment previous mentioned about how 'the numbers don't lie'......I was pointing out that yes, actually they do...if you're so deceived to believe your liberal news sources & their polls. Those same mainstream media sources just keep bringing up more 'stories' that they have to retract because they are fake.......fake news, fake polls,


Selective blindness is a reality of liberals.

Real Clear Politics averaged all the polls and had Clinton winning the vote by 3.3%. She won by 2.2%. The electoral map prediction had only one surprise in Wisconsin which was marked as leaning left. The rest were all toss up swing states. Clinton was definitely favored in the polls but all was within the margin of error. They weren't as far off as you are making it seem.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Winning by 3.3%? I remember libs predicting Hillary would win in a 'landslide'. 'Within the margin of error' and '3.3%' is NOT the 'landslide' predicted at the time.

Well then those "libs" were wrong, but we are talking about polls... the numbers show clinton getting 3.3% more votes than Trump and the actual numbers were 2.1%

 

[easyt65]

Well then those "libs" were wrong, but we are talking about polls... the numbers show clinton getting 3.3% more votes than Trump and the actual numbers were 2.1%

Ah, you're talking about the 3.3% more insignificant 'popularity contest' votes.... got it. Thank you.