That was fun. Now roast the bastard.

[turtlespeed 220]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

You're saying Hillary went into Bill's presidency with the intention of making money from it years after he left office? That's pretty convoluted. And also so what?

 

I didn't say proof, I asked for any reason or evidence. But it's hardly surprising you can't give any.

No - I was saying that Hillary would have had that in her mind as she was running.

There is more than one Clinton that tried the Presidential route.

Hillary KNEW how much back room dealing there would be and had an idea of what she could benefit from it was.  After all, they already did it once.

I'm also talking about net worth DURING the presidency going up dramatically.

 

I'm pretty sure you knew that already, though.

(should have.)

Edited December 24, 2019 by turtlespeed

[jakee 1,489]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

No - I was saying that Hillary would have had that in her mind as she was running.

Hillary was already in a position to make lots of money the same way Bill was. Her last autobiography deal was bigger than his. The presidency may have extended that earning power but she certainly didn't need it. She's already globally famous.

 

Quote

Hillary KNEW how much back room dealing there would be and had an idea of what she could benefit from it was.  After all, they already did it once.

This is another of those things you're going to need to use facts for. What back room dealing did the Clintons benefit from while in office?

 

Quote

I'm also talking about net worth DURING the presidency going up dramatically.

Bill Clinton's net worth went up by minus $10M+ dollars during the Presidency. He left the Whitehouse in massive debt from legal fees. I can't imagine you don't know that - I guess you're just doing your normal thing and blanking it out because it doesn't fit your anti-Democrat narrative.

[turtlespeed 220]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

Hillary was already in a position to make lots of money the same way Bill was. Her last autobiography deal was bigger than his. The presidency may have extended that earning power but she certainly didn't need it. She's already globally famous.

 

This is another of those things you're going to need to use facts for. What back room dealing did the Clintons benefit from while in office?

 

Bill Clinton's net worth went up by minus $10M+ dollars during the Presidency. He left the Whitehouse in massive debt from legal fees. I can't imagine you don't know that - I guess you're just doing your normal thing and blanking it out because it doesn't fit your anti-Democrat narrative.

See.  He's like a climate change denier.

[jakee 1,489]

48 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

See.  He's like a climate change denier.

Put up something to deny. Show some evidence for Clinton’s net worth going up during his Presidency. Show some evidence of lucrative back room deals.

 

Come on - at this point you’re making the jump from blind bias to being an Alex Jones style conspiracy theorist.

 

[turtlespeed 220]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Put up something to deny. Show some evidence for Clinton’s net worth going up during his Presidency. Show some evidence of lucrative back room deals.

 

Come on - at this point you’re making the jump from blind bias to being an Alex Jones style conspiracy theorist.

 

Brent - Is that you?

[jakee 1,489]

On 12/24/2019 at 5:36 PM, turtlespeed said:

Brent - Is that you?

It's so predctable that you go fully on the attack when you've got nothing else to prop up your argument. Don't you realise how transparent it is?

 

If it's this cut and dried, where's your evidence? How much did Clinton profit while in office? What back room deals did he make? It should be trivially easy for you to support your argument if it's as obvious as you say it is, and not some fringe right wing conspiracy theory you've been suckered into.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

It's so predctable that you go fully on the attack when you've got nothing else to prop up your argument. Don't you realise how transparent it is?

 

If it's this cut and dried, where's your evidence? How much did Clinton profit while in office? What back room deals did he make? It should be trivially easy for you to support your argument if it's as obvious as you say it is, and not RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA you've been suckered into.

FIFY 

And in yet another fit of rage, Trump again tweeted the name of the alleged whistleblower.

For a government official to publicly name someone like this is a crime.

Yet another impeachable offense?

[normiss 798]

13 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

FIFY 

And in yet another fit of rage, Trump again tweeted the name of the alleged whistleblower.

For a government official to publicly name someone like this is a crime.

Yet another impeachable offense?

I'm stunned daily by the amount of disinformation and violations of law from elected Republican officials, as well as the Americans that blindly follow and support these efforts.

We're losing our country. It's just unreal.

Germany sees Trump as the biggest risk to the planet over NoKo and Russia even.

We've lost our way.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 minutes ago, normiss said:

I'm stunned daily by the amount of disinformation and violations of law from elected Republican officials, as well as the Americans that blindly follow and support these efforts.

We're losing our country. It's just unreal.

Germany sees Trump as the biggest risk to the planet over NoKo and Russia even.

We've lost our way.

Well, the press (MSM) seems to finally be realizing that the Rs are engaging in an active disinformation (Propaganda) campaign. 
Not just echoing the Russian one, although they are doing that too, but telling verifiable and demonstrable lies.
The FB poster you linked a while back, Heather Cox Richardson, has mentioned it a few times. Yesterday's post took it a step further and noted that the press themselves are tired of being used as tools by the R propaganda machine ("R" in this case being BOTH "Russian" and "Republican").

Post: 

 

From the post:
 

Quote

...a sign that media figures are starting to see how they are being used to advance disinformation. There has been discussion emerging of how to report the news without providing a platform for lies. If it takes hold, there will be an important shift in media coverage of the administration and congressional supporters in the new year.

Of course, people that support Trump will just say this is more "Fake News", that it's the media, not the Rs that are telling lies.
But they already do that, so no big change.

[jakee 1,489]

47 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Ten years later, in 2012, Thomas E. Mann from the left-leaning Brookings Institution and Norm Ornstein from the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute warned that it was imperative to stop saying “both sides do it,” because the parties were not equally polarized. “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics,” they wrote. “It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

This could be directly addressed to a few people we have here.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

This could be directly addressed to a few people we have here.

Oh, hell yeah.

The false equivalence that pretends the Ds are ANYWHERE near as corrupt and dishonest as the Rs is about all they have left.

And, to be clear, what you quoted is from the Heather Cox Richardson link I posted. Me no write that good.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Well, this is pretty interesting.

Marco Rubio is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
He has been briefed on the Ukraine situation and the Russian propaganda.
At least he should have been.

But apparently he either didn't go to those meetings or didn't pay any attention.

https://twitter.com/KaivanShroff/status/1211693329257320451