Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Nope, 23.2 million, or ten percent of their income is the amount the Clinton's gave to charities from 2001-2015. How much did you give?
Why do Bernie Babies deny helping Trump get elected?
- Thread starter Chezus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sanders cucks
Nope, 23.2 million, or ten percent of their income is the amount the Clinton's gave to charities from 2001-2015. How much did you give?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So in a post I made about a point I made about how former Secretary of State's aren't paid the same kind of exorbitant fees that Clinton is for speeches since they have no ambition to run for president, like Clinton does, you choose to obfuscate and cite how much the Clinton family has given to charity instead? And you wonder why this all looks like corruption?
How much the Clinton family has donated to charity is irrelevant to the fact they've accepted nearly $3 billion in political contributions since Bill Clinton entered politics. More than any other family in America as far as I know.
Well im sure you will do everything you can to get Trump reelected if she does
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Yep, cause it makes your little speaking fee look like a drop in the bucket, when it comes to their charitable donations, derp. How much did you donate?
You sound as stupid as the folks saying that Robert Mueller cant be trusted because he worked with people that donated to Hillary's campaign.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why do you ignore the content of the previous reply directed towards you? Is it because you can't adequately address it in a rational way?
We were talking about campaign contributions, you mentioned she still gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, I commented she still gets paid that much because she's still planning on running for president. Meaning those that continue to pay her to give speeches still expect a return on their investment. They wouldn't pay her to speak if they didn't, much like they don't pay previous SOS said fees to speak.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Apparently not to the majority of the American people
You and the rest of the Hillbots can claim nothing she did "even showed the appearance of corruption" all you want. According to "the only vote that mattered", it did.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Nobody in the universe believes a Hillary Clinton presidency is possible at this point. I reject the very premise of your argument.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
OK. If she runs again I expect an apology
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
jonsnow399
Well-Known Member
Except Hillary.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
I doubt even she believes it's possible. It's not possible.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Nobody in the universe believes a Hillary Clinton presidency is possible at this point
Bullshit. Hillary Clinton does. She spent 15 years cultivating her image for the white house. The fact she lost doesn't matter. She's already spent too much to waste. She will be running again.
If you disagree, I'll be expecting an apology in 2020
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Again. I did not say she wouldn't run (although I don't believe she will). Slow down, read what I wrote and reply to that, not what your obsession made you think I said. This will be your third bite at the apple. If you fail again, I'll spell it out for you. That would be very sad.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Then I guess I'm just stupid. Spell it out for me
Implying people are stupid if they don't understand your argument doesn't help them understand your argument. For future posts, assume you didn't explain your position well enough. If someone doesn't understand what you're trying to say, it's not their fault, it's yours.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
Nah. You're not stupid. Weird. But not stupid.
Here is exactly what I wrote.
Saying a Clinton presidency is not possible is not the same as saying a Clinton candidacy is not possible. It is not a minor distinction and my statement was clear. Why you interpreted it differently and could absolutely not be shaken off of your interpretation, one can only guess. Even you, I suppose.
Edit: Further, I wasn't implying you were stupid for misinterpreting my statement (which was as clear as can be). I'm implying you have an irrational hatred of Clinton.
Last edited:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Access. And that is always a bargain, no matter how much you pay for it- especially in tax deductible dollars.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Why did Live Nation pay Shakira $320 million to only perform exclusively under their brand?
"Just to hear her sing"?
Organisers totally don't charge people for tickets to the events that people like Clinton or Shakira "perform" at, nope, no way.
/sarc
(I only read the 320mill thing recently, hence the mention, big money money)
in 2008, Clinton was only able to convert 76% of her voters to Obama..a full 12% less than what Sanders converted to her (88%), after WE THE PEOPLE knew she cheated?