User avatar
Nobody
31 Mar 2017 05:16 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:16 pm
Nobody
User avatar
ROFL at the people who still think that this is all about sour grapes over the election. Like I said in my last post. The Russians aren't done tampering in our democracy. Ask Marco Rubio. You can look the other way now, but when they target your party you'll be changing your tune....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Huey
31 Mar 2017 05:14 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:14 pm
Huey
User avatar
Like the trump campaign Russian ties I treat Podesta the same way. Until we solid proof we have nothing but speculation that changes by the day and does nothing but the sheeple of both side riled up for no reason. As the commercial used to say where (the ****) is the beef?...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
31 Mar 2017 05:12 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:12 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
Without getting into the Clinton fees, which I'd have to take a lot of time to research, it's my understanding that Podesta profited by $35 million. I've watched and read about ordinary businessmen, and it is all but impossible for him to have earned that unless he was bringing political influence ...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
31 Mar 2017 05:11 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:11 pm
Nobody
User avatar
How can I show you evidence of something that is not provable? What I can say is that it sure didn't help the Democrats. I don't disagree that the decision to run such a flawed candidate was a big mistake. I'm not shifting anything. I don't care for the fact that Russia tried to **** with our el...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
31 Mar 2017 05:08 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:08 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
True. Trouble is, liberals can't handle a reality like that. I had a comical experience with a group of local liberals who 1) were appallingly ignorant about very, very basic facts yet insisted stridently that they were correct and I was wrong, and 2) were so reality averse that they obviou...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Huey
31 Mar 2017 05:08 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:08 pm
Huey
User avatar
That was Clinton's standard fees. But it’s important to keep in mind that Bill Clinton regularly delivers speeches for fees of $500,000 or higher — such as a $750,000 speech in Hong Kong in 2011, paid for by a Swedish communications company, and a $600,000 speech in the Netherlands, also in 2011,...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Termin8tor
31 Mar 2017 05:05 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:05 pm
Termin8tor
User avatar
Which doesn't answer my question. I would understand if Clinton or any president got high fees from some grateful country or business for general good performance. That happens. Russian money doesn't fall into that category. What did the Clinton's and their cronies get for receiving 10's of mill...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Cannonpointer
31 Mar 2017 05:00 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:00 pm
Cannonpointer
User avatar
Is this the true answer, Misty?...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Huey
31 Mar 2017 05:00 pm
31 Mar 2017 05:00 pm
Huey
User avatar
If you can get that much money to give a speech more power to you....
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Huey
31 Mar 2017 04:59 pm
31 Mar 2017 04:59 pm
Huey
User avatar
The left will never, ever accept the fact that the reason they lost is most of America rejected their candidate. Simple fact. It was not the Russians, it was not fake news, it was not the almighty dollar. It was the candidate and the games they played during the campaign. In addition to people b...
— LiberalForum Archive