even worse....those funds should have been redistributed to the masses...this is an outrage! how many homes does a devoted socialist need!

actually....he's doing alright for a guy that's never had a real job....

Obviously you were not paying close attention to sanders message.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're right, this went way over my head. Very nice song, and well sung. There are millions of YouTube videos and I have not seen even a small fraction of most. Maybe a tiny, tiny, fraction. I apologize for not knowing about this video or about Guy Clark. Who's Guy Clark?

But, anyway, I hope you didn't take my post seriously. Or, at least, didn't take it literally. I was mostly funnin', with a, perhaps, small relevant point. Hope that didn't go over your head.

The question about why now but not when she was Sec State? The answer is simple, because as POTUS she sets policy, as Sec State she didn't.

don't tell her that :rotf2:


she'd better kill Julian Assange pretty soon here.....

Yes, the answer is simple. The point of doing it when she was SecState was to help her become POTUS. When she was the Secretary, she had influence and could make promises to donors about what policy she would set when she became POTUS. When she gets that prize, mission will be accomplished--she will no longer need the Foundation.

You forgot the evil laugh.

The evil laugh would not be useful when asking for money. It is useful to pooh pooh those who would point out what she was doing.

You're saying that the SecState has zero authority to set, or even to influence, policy. That is demonstrably false. SecState can't unillaterally declare war. But SecState can decide who to meet with, and who to suggest we sell arms to. During her tenure, it sure seems to have been beneficial for those who want US-made arms, to give big. The guy from Bahrain wrote a personal check of 32M to her foundation, then - VOILA!! - he is able to buy more weapons from America, which he used to crush those who suggested that democracy might be a better option than totalitarianism.

To you, that's not even the appearance of impropriety.

Enjoy your denial-fest.

She sold her share to her brother for $150,000
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're right, I wasn't.

who is she NOT having SEX with i wanna Know

kinda reminds me of Al Bundy doing anything to avoid
going upstairs with PEG.....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-dono...075420856.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

So the AP based the story on the facts available and the Clinton News Network says it's 100% inaccurate because they based the story only using available information and didn't include the unavailable information.

So where is the proof of the overestimate the amount of non government people who got to have a meeting with Hillary Clinton?
What a surprise.
Looks like they are waiting until after the election to release any more information that could prove whether the AP was overstating or under stating the influence a donation to the Clinton Foundation

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-clinto...-election.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes Spence, the AP is part of the vast right wing conspiracy.

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.

Why would the AP question Hilary? Anyone who can laugh in the face of that sniper fire she claims to have come under, is clearly above reproach.

The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

Spence, there is an email from a foundation employee to Hilary's secstate email. In it, the foundation employee says that the prince of Bahrain (who gave $32million to the foundation) is "a good friend of ours". Coincidentally, after this email, Hilary met with the guy and sold him weapons.

Also, Weiner's wife was a paid employee of the State Dept, and the foundation, at the same time.

There is no email where Hilary says that you have to pay to get access to her. But there is certainly the appearance, once again, of impropriety.

And again, there is no earthly reason why foreign donations are acceptable when she was secstate, but inappropriate as POTUS. Secstate is a very powerful position, maybe you can take high school civics and bone up on that.

and sheeple still defend her......just call a spade a spade. lips moving? - she's lying.

why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing with all theses illegal activities that the Clinton crime family Have seeming committed for years ... but post rumor and conjecture as Fact over and over and over .. then when asked to support their claims or shoot holes in their assertions they get responses like.. and sheeple still defend her

sadly there seem to be more Sheeple on the right if we use the term fairly in we dont need any stinking proof crowd

we just know it to be true !

and yet trump remains untouched in this forum no matter what he says or does .. its very telling

wdmso- had she not been caught in many lies? do you honestly believe that her and bill are not shady characters in their dealings since Arkansas? and trump? I think he's a loud mouthed idiot- I'll take that over Clinton any day and twice on Tuesdays.

Sheeple :uhuh: - Every independent fact checker rates Trump as the most dishonest presidential candidate in either party for the past many, many years.

"why is it the can right never ever provide any evidence of wronging doing "

I see no irrefutable evidence that she ever committed a crime. But wrongdoing? You betcha.

There is videotape of her claiming she came under sniper fire on that overseas trip, when we know that didn't happen. And she still won't admit she lied. If such a lie means that Brian Williams is unfit to read news off a teleprompter, maybe it means she's unfit to be POTUS.

There's video evidence that she denied that Bill was cheating on her. Instead she claimed that the GOP was framing him to make it look that way. That means either she's a liar, or she genuinely believes that (in which case, she is insane).

We know there is video evidence that she attacked the victims of her husband's predation. Some feminist.

Regarding Benghazi, we know she flip-flopped about the root cause of the attack. By a stunning coincidence, every time she made a public statement, she said it was a spontaneous reaction to a video (and therefore not something she can be blamed for). In her private statements to Chelsea and others, she concedes it was terrorism. When pressed on the inconsistency, she said "what does it matter". To most people, the truth matters.

regarding the emails, we know she told multiple lies. She said she turned over all the emails (except the thousands that the FBI found on their own). She said she sent none that were flagged as classified at the time (except the ones that she sent which were flagged at the time). She said all the remaining emails were not related to work - wrong. Then she blames the nearest convenient black guy - Colin Powell.

While being investigated, her husband gets on the attorney generals plane for a chat. Two days later, the DOJ announces no charges. Immediately after, the Clinton campaign states that they would consider keeping her on as attorney general. No quid pro quo there, nope, not at all.

Now, the foundation. Is there direct evidence that you had to donate to see her? Of course not. Are there a lot of big donors who were able to see her, during her time as SecState? Yep. Does it have the appearance of impropriety? Yep.

She's not a murderer. But she has zero morals.

It's simple, us "uneducated" folks can see the writing on the wall. You don't amass a fortune of $200 million , when your only job has been public service , without doing shady things . She is corrupt , it's not that hard to avoid " evidence " when The Department of Justice is also corrupt . You my friend are extremely naïve .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hear a lot of Trump voters, like me, admit that he's a crass, obnoxious jerk...but that we are voting for him because his policies are way more in-line with our values, than her policies.

I don't hear many Hilary supporters, able to concede that she is prone to any moral lapses. Liberals don't like to concede anything. Ever.

What a choice. God help us.

this gets funnier every time you write it...seriously :rotf2:

I know, it is amazing how blind people are! Maybe Sheeple?

When you look at "independent" fact checkers "ratings" over time, you notice patterns that don't exactly look "independent." Who checks the fact checkers? When did they become God?

As far as presidential candidates go, they are caught in a warp in which, for that time, they are supposed to convince a hundred million people that they have "answers" to what are, for the most part, the wrong questions. It is that, unholy, yet peculiarly sacred in its own recurring way, time when we expect to hear the hoped for fabrications on how the country will be "fixed."

We don't really expect that the promises will be kept, that what is said is actually true, we just hope that it convinces enough voters to put the candidate of our prejudicial choice into the position of giving us what we think we want.

Except for the minority of "purists" who insist on being true to constitutions and such--to an actual predictable, agreed upon system of government. But the purists don't really count when it's time to choose between fundamental truths and getting stuff. It is difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who is interested in getting stuff, especially "free" stuff. And whatever lies it takes to convince those voters that they're going to get stuff will be forgotten if their guys win. And if they don't get their stuff right away, or the stuff isn't as good as promised, there's the next round of presidential candidates to make it happen, or even make it better. All they need to do is say the right things, make the right promises to most of the different "constituencies."

Is there really such a thing as a "lie" when it comes to politics? Isn't it true that you can tell when a politician is lying--when his lips are moving? So when is a politician the most "dishonest" one? When her lips move more than the others?

Lying in political campaigns is a unique beast, apparently an acceptable one. Lying in your personal life is another matter. Between Hillary and Trump, who lies more outside of campaigning is probably not quantifiable.

And is sarcasm a lie?

Good lord, that is something that cannot be measured accurately, unless they are analyzing every single thing the person has ever said. How do they even quantify this? Let me guess, they take a "sample" of statements made recently. If that's the case, then the honesty value depends entirely on which statements are considered, and which are not.

If Hilary gives a speech and mentions the "war on women" crap, is that considered a lie? When she says I am anti-woman, is that a lie? if not, who cares what the study says.

Let's say Trump is a liar - fine. The point is, none of the left-leaning folks here, can bring themselves to criticize her about anything.

They are both morally repugnant. She's a little more slick about it.