Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They did much more than that. As Secretary of State, Hillary facilitated the sale of Uranium One to Russia, giving Putin control over 20% of America's uranium production capacity in return for millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 fee to Bill for one speech. It is a fair bet that the purpose of the private email server was to facilitate more such deals and the deletion of the 33,000 emails was to cover up evidence of influence peddling by Secretary of State Clinton.Most of the Clintons estimated fortune of $140 million came from lecture and consulting fees and only a small part of it came from writing their books. This was why Bernie Sanders was such a harsh critic of the Clintons alliances with wealthy financiers in America and with foreign interests eager for influence in America.As to whether the book makes the author wealthy or not, I don't really care what someone writes in a book. So that they wrote the book and got rich from doing so is fine with me.
Let's be honest here, Toomuch! Most of the Clinton's fortune came from selling political influence.
The Clinton's fortune came from selling their story of experiences in public life and from selling their own celebrity status as youngish former appointed and elected officials. They have made very good money doing little but being "in person" editorialists. That's what most honorary speakers do...they say a few nice words about their host and then remark upon the "state of something" as they see it, the crowd applauds and the speaker collects a check.
And Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street paid for Mrs. Clinton to talk about that? Get real.
Gee, how did we let a guy who grew up THERE....ever become our President!
What?? I don't care that Trump or anyone else grew up in fortunate financial circumstances. I care whether one way or another they understand and accurately identify the circumstances faced by folks who weren't "to the manor born." Some of those super wealthy folks do; others do not. Trump is among those who have not and because he has not, he does not deserve to be believed when he claims he would be effective at boosting the fortunes and well being of "regular" citizens.
Off Topic:
I think you have some innate disdain for folks who "make it" in America. I have news for you, people come to America, came to America and remain in America because, in contrast with most other nations, "making it" is easy, even though it's not easy in an absolute sense of the word.
I have the utmost respect for people who came to America and made it through hard work. I have very little respect for people who use their political office to enrich themselves...especially when they do so while condemning the wealthy. I also have little respect for the Moore's and Jackson's of the world who turn activism into a cottage industry that brings them millions of dollars.
why do think Goldman Sachs and Wall Street is pouring millions into the Clinton campaign?
No other former President has come close to making the kind of money that Bill Clinton has gotten paid by people seeking influence.
??? Are you keen to share trivia that has no relevance to much of anything? I suppose it's useful if you appear on Jeopardy and they have that as a category....
Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees are high—but only compared with other women
Gee, how did we let a guy who grew up THERE....ever become our President!
What?? I don't care that Trump or anyone else grew up in fortunate financial circumstances. I care whether one way or another they understand and accurately identify the circumstances faced by folks who weren't "to the manor born." Some of those super wealthy folks do; others do not. Trump is among those who have not and because he has not, he does not deserve to be believed when he claims he would be effective at boosting the fortunes and well being of "regular" citizens.
Off Topic:
I think you have some innate disdain for folks who "make it" in America. I have news for you, people come to America, came to America and remain in America because, in contrast with most other nations, "making it" is easy, even though it's not easy in an absolute sense of the word.
I have the utmost respect for people who came to America and made it through hard work. I have very little respect for people who use their political office to enrich themselves...especially when they do so while condemning the wealthy. I also have little respect for the Moore's and Jackson's of the world who turn activism into a cottage industry that brings them millions of dollars.
Whatever...the incoherence and uncompelling nature of those last remarks is astounding.
They paid her for the same reasons the Russians paid her and Bill, to buy influence.They did much more than that. As Secretary of State, Hillary facilitated the sale of Uranium One to Russia, giving Putin control over 20% of America's uranium production capacity in return for millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 fee to Bill for one speech. It is a fair bet that the purpose of the private email server was to facilitate more such deals and the deletion of the 33,000 emails was to cover up evidence of influence peddling by Secretary of State Clinton.Most of the Clintons estimated fortune of $140 million came from lecture and consulting fees and only a small part of it came from writing their books. This was why Bernie Sanders was such a harsh critic of the Clintons alliances with wealthy financiers in America and with foreign interests eager for influence in America.As to whether the book makes the author wealthy or not, I don't really care what someone writes in a book. So that they wrote the book and got rich from doing so is fine with me.
Let's be honest here, Toomuch! Most of the Clinton's fortune came from selling political influence.
The Clinton's fortune came from selling their story of experiences in public life and from selling their own celebrity status as youngish former appointed and elected officials. They have made very good money doing little but being "in person" editorialists. That's what most honorary speakers do...they say a few nice words about their host and then remark upon the "state of something" as they see it, the crowd applauds and the speaker collects a check.
And Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street paid for Mrs. Clinton to talk about that? Get real.
No other former President has come close to making the kind of money that Bill Clinton has gotten paid by people seeking influence.
??? Are you keen to share trivia that has no relevance to much of anything? I suppose it's useful if you appear on Jeopardy and they have that as a category....
Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees are high—but only compared with other women
Read the article you cited and think about what it says! Bill Clinton received 17.3 million dollars in speaking fees in 2012...while his wife was the Secretary of State! That's a staggeringly large number. So why do you think a former President was pulling down that kind of money from the people who paid him to speak?
Whatever? Such an astute comeback! I'm coming to the conclusion, 320 that you KNOW that progressive leaders are making themselves incredibly wealthy while the poor they pretend to champion keep getting poorer but have chosen to ignore it.
Earlier today I found myself in a discussion (RL) with several other folks about why Trump (not the GOP) is unpopular as a Presidential candidate among working class minorities yet is extremely popular among working class white folks. It is bizarre to me why one might even wonder when the answer is as plain as the nose on one's face: his actions give one absolutely no reason to believe his words about actually caring about working class Americans.
To illustrate, consider any number of things:
Those are three palpable examples that clearly illustrate his condescension toward working class minorities and his lack of awareness of their situation and how to act to materially improve it, even on a small scale, assuming, that is, there be any truth to the assertion he is of a mind to do so, which given that when given the opportunity to make a real impact and his not doing so, is a dubious claim at best.
- The fact that it's hard to find any instances of Trump's having visited working class minority neighborhoods and speaking with, and more importantly listening to, working class minorities.
- The fact that not one of his business ventures has working class people as target customers.
- His behavior at Bronx P.S. 70...especially when considered in contrast with another corporate executive's comportment at the very same school.
Now do the preceding examples and others that I didn't mention speak to why minorities overwhelmingly favor Mrs. Clinton? Of course not. Does it say anything about whether Mrs. Clinton would be better for working class minorities', or working class people in general's, fortunes? Not at all. To gauge whether the same assertion has anything supporting it, one must consider her actions. The thing is that whereas I can find throughout her long life in public service instances where her remarks suggest something other than a comprehensive understanding of working class minorities' needs, I can't find any instances at all of her acting with deliberacy or insouciance toward them.
Earlier today I found myself in a discussion (RL) with several other folks about why Trump (not the GOP) is unpopular as a Presidential candidate among working class minorities yet is extremely popular among working class white folks. It is bizarre to me why one might even wonder when the answer is as plain as the nose on one's face: his actions give one absolutely no reason to believe his words about actually caring about working class Americans.
To illustrate, consider any number of things:
Those are three palpable examples that clearly illustrate his condescension toward working class minorities and his lack of awareness of their situation and how to act to materially improve it, even on a small scale, assuming, that is, there be any truth to the assertion he is of a mind to do so, which given that when given the opportunity to make a real impact and his not doing so, is a dubious claim at best.
- The fact that it's hard to find any instances of Trump's having visited working class minority neighborhoods and speaking with, and more importantly listening to, working class minorities.
- The fact that not one of his business ventures has working class people as target customers.
- His behavior at Bronx P.S. 70...especially when considered in contrast with another corporate executive's comportment at the very same school.
Now do the preceding examples and others that I didn't mention speak to why minorities overwhelmingly favor Mrs. Clinton? Of course not. Does it say anything about whether Mrs. Clinton would be better for working class minorities', or working class people in general's, fortunes? Not at all. To gauge whether the same assertion has anything supporting it, one must consider her actions. The thing is that whereas I can find throughout her long life in public service instances where her remarks suggest something other than a comprehensive understanding of working class minorities' needs, I can't find any instances at all of her acting with deliberacy or insouciance toward them.
Maybe it's because minorities pull the.D and do not have open minds?
No other former President has come close to making the kind of money that Bill Clinton has gotten paid by people seeking influence.
??? Are you keen to share trivia that has no relevance to much of anything? I suppose it's useful if you appear on Jeopardy and they have that as a category....
Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees are high—but only compared with other women
Read the article you cited and think about what it says! Bill Clinton received 17.3 million dollars in speaking fees in 2012...while his wife was the Secretary of State! That's a staggeringly large number. So why do you think a former President was pulling down that kind of money from the people who paid him to speak?
- Because he is a former President, and one who left office after having had eight years of decreasing budget deficits and four years of budget surpluses and fantastic economic growth, something no other modern President managed to do.
- Because his connections, having been President, and association with other "movers, shakers and 'rainmkers' " (both in and outside of government) and their visions of what should be done, what is happening, what's good/bad about it, etc. was and remains unparalleled at the moment
- Bilderberg Group
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Trilateral Commission
- Others...
- Because he has a demonstrated level of intellectual acuity that rare among people in general, but is equally rare among former politicians and world leaders
- Because he's a celebrity
- Because the people paying had the money to spend
- Because he's a good negotiator of the sum he can charge for what he has to sell
- Because he doesn't talk down to his audience when he addresses them; he speaks to them as though he presumes they are as sophisticated, as well informed and as bright as he is. That's called being a respectful speaker, and in every arena, except USMB, in which I've found myself listening to speakers and/or sharing my ideas, people appreciate that. (For some strange reason, many folks here see thorough and nuanced thinking/communication as some sort of attempt to bamboozle the audience or as an effort of self aggrandizement....Go figure...Why the hell anyone in their right mind would come here to do either of those things -- to do that amid an audience of complete strangers, as we are here, who as such can do one no good whatsoever -- is beyond me...)
- Because in addition to those things, he's actually a very good orator -- Regardless of what one thinks of the ideas he shares, is really quite compelling to listen to; attend an event at which he is the keynote speaker (or hire him for your own) and you'll find that out for yourself if you bother to listen to him.
you KNOW that progressive leaders are making themselves incredibly wealthy
Earlier today I found myself in a discussion (RL) with several other folks about why Trump (not the GOP) is unpopular as a Presidential candidate among working class minorities yet is extremely popular among working class white folks. It is bizarre to me why one might even wonder when the answer is as plain as the nose on one's face: his actions give one absolutely no reason to believe his words about actually caring about working class Americans.
To illustrate, consider any number of things:
Those are three palpable examples that clearly illustrate his condescension toward working class minorities and his lack of awareness of their situation and how to act to materially improve it, even on a small scale, assuming, that is, there be any truth to the assertion he is of a mind to do so, which given that when given the opportunity to make a real impact and his not doing so, is a dubious claim at best.
- The fact that it's hard to find any instances of Trump's having visited working class minority neighborhoods and speaking with, and more importantly listening to, working class minorities.
- The fact that not one of his business ventures has working class people as target customers.
- His behavior at Bronx P.S. 70...especially when considered in contrast with another corporate executive's comportment at the very same school.
Now do the preceding examples and others that I didn't mention speak to why minorities overwhelmingly favor Mrs. Clinton? Of course not. Does it say anything about whether Mrs. Clinton would be better for working class minorities', or working class people in general's, fortunes? Not at all. To gauge whether the same assertion has anything supporting it, one must consider her actions. The thing is that whereas I can find throughout her long life in public service instances where her remarks suggest something other than a comprehensive understanding of working class minorities' needs, I can't find any instances at all of her acting with deliberacy or insouciance toward them.
Maybe it's because minorities pull the.D and do not have open minds?
Are you asking a question for which you want an answer or is yours a rhetorical question? If the former, 8 Reasons Donald Trump Would Not Be Great For 'The Blacks'. If the latter, can you explain yourself please with regard to the following?
- What has that behavior to do with Trump's actual "unpopularity as a Presidential candidate among working class minorities yet [while being] extremely popular among working class white folks?
- What has that behavior to do with Trump's lack of a track record of demonstrably failing to act in ways that give credence to his attestations about being "great" for low income citizens of any sort, be they white, black, Latino, Asian, Native American, etc?
you KNOW that progressive leaders are making themselves incredibly wealthy
I have news for you...Leader of all sorts, not just political leaders, become wealthy or at least upper middle class. That is one of the benefits accruing to one's working hard to qualify for leadership roles and then obtaining one. Even Ralph Nader is well off, and he'd be better off if he didn't give away so much of his income.
No other former President has come close to making the kind of money that Bill Clinton has gotten paid by people seeking influence.
??? Are you keen to share trivia that has no relevance to much of anything? I suppose it's useful if you appear on Jeopardy and they have that as a category....
Yes, Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees are high—but only compared with other women
Read the article you cited and think about what it says! Bill Clinton received 17.3 million dollars in speaking fees in 2012...while his wife was the Secretary of State! That's a staggeringly large number. So why do you think a former President was pulling down that kind of money from the people who paid him to speak?
- Because he is a former President, and one who left office after having had eight years of decreasing budget deficits and four years of budget surpluses and fantastic economic growth, something no other modern President managed to do.
- Because his connections, having been President, and association with other "movers, shakers and 'rainmkers' " (both in and outside of government) and their visions of what should be done, what is happening, what's good/bad about it, etc. was and remains unparalleled at the moment
- Bilderberg Group
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Trilateral Commission
- Others...
- Because he has a demonstrated level of intellectual acuity that rare among people in general, but is equally rare among former politicians and world leaders
- Because he's a celebrity
- Because the people paying had the money to spend
- Because he's a good negotiator of the sum he can charge for what he has to sell
- Because he doesn't talk down to his audience when he addresses them; he speaks to them as though he presumes they are as sophisticated, as well informed and as bright as he is. That's called being a respectful speaker, and in every arena, except USMB, in which I've found myself listening to speakers and/or sharing my ideas, people appreciate that. (For some strange reason, many folks here see thorough and nuanced thinking/communication as some sort of attempt to bamboozle the audience or as an effort of self aggrandizement....Go figure...Why the hell anyone in their right mind would come here to do either of those things -- to do that amid an audience of complete strangers, as we are here, who as such can do one no good whatsoever -- is beyond me...)
- Because in addition to those things, he's actually a very good orator -- Regardless of what one thinks of the ideas he shares, is really quite compelling to listen to; attend an event at which he is the keynote speaker (or hire him for your own) and you'll find that out for yourself if you bother to listen to him.
Then kindly explain why he wasn't making even CLOSE to that amount in speaking fees before Hillary became Secretary of State? Was his "intellectual acuity" less then...than it was a few years later?
Trump hasn't spent the last twenty years "saying" he's great for low income citizens while actually making their lives worse!
Nor has he spent the last twenty years doing that while taking large sums of money from the rich and powerful in return for favors.
Ah, yes...kind of the Animal Farm narrative? We're all equal...only some of us are more equal than others?
Trump hasn't spent the last twenty years "saying" he's great for low income citizens while actually making their lives worse!
There you go again trying to make the case for Trump by attempting to "tear down" someone else. So far, however, you have yet to present anything resembling a case that there're strong and palpable reasons to believe the assertions Trump has made on this topic and during/in support of his candidacy. But for his candidacy, I wouldn't care what Trump has said or done; I'd consider his words and deeds as irrelevant as I do any number of other celebs, such as Madonna, Bill Gates, for example, and literally thousands of other celebs.
How long Trump's made such claims is irrelevant. The fact is that at no point in his life has he done a damn thing that indicates he understands the concerns of working class people or that he'd be "great" for them were he President.
Nor has he spent the last twenty years doing that while taking large sums of money from the rich and powerful in return for favors.
The issue, as goes the credibility of his remarks about being great for minorities or the working class -- isn't whether he has or has not done those things, but rather whether he's ever done anything that lends credibility to his claim that he'd be great for working class folks and minorities.
Ah, yes...kind of the Animal Farm narrative? We're all equal...only some of us are more equal than others?
I made no such Orwellian remarks. That's you again recasting my words to fit your narrative.
I'm not making the case for Trump...I'm simply pointing out how corrupt the Clinton's are.
I'm not making the case for Trump...I'm simply pointing out how corrupt the Clinton's are.
I can tell that's what you are doing and not doing. I'm asking you, again, to address the thread topic rather than something other than the thread topic.
