CROOKED Hilary

She cares about working mothers, she really does:
RB3AO4.jpg
 
The combined net worth of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, barely reaches that of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Cheney can be tossed in as well if you use the lower end of his estimated net worth. Another noteworthy distinction is that a large portion of the Clinton wealth was amassed while Hillary was serving in public office.

Reagan 15MM
Bush 1 23MM
Bush 2 20MM
Cheney 90MM

Sum 148MM

Clinton 1 55MM
Clinton 2 30MM

Sum 85MM

Barely reaches? Throw out Cheney (who made most of his wealth while serving in public office for Reagan and both Bushes btw), and it's still close.
 
So we're bashing Hilldog for having money and cherishing Trump's financial wizardry?
 
Last edited:
So we're bashing Hilldog for having money, and cherishing Trump's financial wizardry?

When you're giving a heartfelt speech about income inequality (as she was doing in the pic), while wearing an Armani jacket that costs $12,495, she deserves every bit of ridicule she gets.
 
When you're giving a heartfelt speech about income inequality (as she was doing in the pic), while wearing an Armani jacket that costs $12,495, she deserves every bit of ridicule she gets.

It would be like wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat (that's made in China) while wearing any piece of the Donald J. Trump Collection (the Donald J. Trump Collection includes shirts — as well as eye­glasses, perfume, cuff links and suits — all made in Bangladesh, China, Honduras and other low-wage countries.) and chastising Ford for exporting jobs.
 
I stand corrected. They are produced by a factory in CA that has 100 employees 80% of which are Latino.
 
It's bad for Hillary to make $225,000 for a speec. It's corrupt to aocs and the bobs. Then how come it's OK for Trump to get paid more than SIX TIMES as much?
 
My, my, how times have changed! I remember when the left liberals were completely apoplectic when ex-President Ronald Reagan gave a speech in Japan and was well paid for it. They were positively Elisabeth Warrenesque as they denounced such actions as greedy and unpresidential. The only proper way for ex-presidents to behave, they insisted, was the way Jimmy Carter behaved.
 
I think it is poor form for a politician who is currently serving. Or intends to return to public service to make massive sums of money for a 30 minute speech. I have no problem with a former politician making whatever they want speaking.

We know who trump is and his speech fees are the least of my concerns about his competency. You could probably say the same about Clinton but it is remarkable that she leveraged her political power to make massive sums of money while knowing that she was going to re-enter the public sphere. She knew she was going to run to for the highest office in the world and she still allowed people to gain influence. Money talks. And if someone has given you that kind of money their phone call is going to be answered. Who knows how much influence all these outside sources will have but at best it is very poor form for both Clinton and trump. At worst it is deeply concerning issue that impacts our national security. Most likely the reality falls somewhere In between.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Good luck finding a former politician who doesn't charge for speeches.

How much do Trump's suits cost?
 
Did you read? I said I have no problem with a FORMER politician charging massive amounts for speeches. I think it is bad form for someone who is serving or plans to serve to sell their political power for personal net worth. I have no idea what the trump comment means. He's terrible. So is Hillary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You do realize Bill made most of the money for the Clintons from speechmaking.

But nice double standard.
 
I read. You're saying a former politician shouldn't charge for speeches just in case they might run for office again.

That's unrealistic and impractical. Somehow I doubt you would hold Jeb Bush to the same standard.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top