• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Russian Election Interference Thread

ChrisL68 said:
I answered your question. You have a remarkable ability to ignore things on this board that don't fit your preconceived talking points, oh king of bullshit.

Have I ever discussed the speaking fees of ex presidents on this board?
Click to expand...

You did not. You said you'd turn a blind eye to it if Trump and family cashed in AFTER their family member was in power. Keyword: after.
 
Second request: where is California stashing their plutonium? Should I be worried about taint on my avacados?
 
Guess we're just gonna skip Ronald Jesus Lord and Savior Reagan's million dollar speeches in Japan, even though speaking fees from foreign entities are big deals
 
jhmd2000 said:
I was referring to the fact that voters have thrown your party out of power in a jarring and decisive way over the last six years. Not sure you've heard. Can you see the scoreboard from where you are sitting?
The "Alabama's mouth with Bzdelick's trophy case" act you've got going continues to amuse.
Click to expand...

People who don't play the game don't get to talk about the scoreboard.

Better luck next time. Maybe Romney will pull it out in 2018.
 
jhmd2000 said:
You did not. You said you'd turn a blind eye to it if Trump and family cashed in AFTER their family member was in power. Keyword: after.
Click to expand...

I think the Clinton's should have been more careful with speaking fees during the time that HRC was secretary of state.

Here's a question for you. Do you honestly believe the bullshit insinuation that you continue to make while omitting tons of material facts that the Clinton's sold out US interests for a $500K speaking fee, when they can generate similar types of income from variety of speaking fees and book deals that they have been in demand for regardless of their current political position?

Its hard for me to take your demands for honesty seriously when you are one of the most intellectually dishonest (either that or incredibly stupid, and I don't think you are stupid) people on this board. You repeat some talking points like the yahoo rubes I see on facebook.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
I think the Clinton's should have been more careful with speaking fees during the time that HRC was secretary of state.

Here's a question for you. Do you honestly believe the bullshit insinuation that you continue to make while omitting tons of material facts that the Clinton's sold out US interests for a $500K speaking fee, when they can generate similar types of income from variety of speaking fees and book deals that they have been in demand for regardless of their current political position?

Its hard for me to take your demands for honesty seriously when you are one of the most intellectually dishonest (either that or incredibly stupid, and I don't think you are stupid) people on this board. You repeat some talking points like the yahoo rubes I see on facebook.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton was giving half million dollar speeches while his wife was SecState, and the presumptive nominee for the General Election.

Fellow ex-President George Bush has a speaking fee of 75,000.
Fellow ex-President George W. Bush is $175,000.00.
Jimmy Carter doesn't even charge for many appearances and his stated fee is $50,000.00.
To be fair, none of their wives were about to be President. I know my buddy WakeandBake would enc our age you to follow the money.
 
Obama just made $400K for a speaking fee. There is an inflation matter. People who are more relevant politically will be in more demand than a long retired president. And is anybody surprised that Shrub isn't generating top dollar on the speaking circuit? Not exactly an inspiring wordsmith.

Most of Clinton's speeches were in the $250K range. When he went places like Russia or Japan to give a speech, they generally paid a premium.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
Obama just made $400K for a speaking fee. There is an inflation matter. And is anybody surprised that Shrub isn't generating top dollar on the speaking circuit.

Bill Clinton vs W?
Click to expand...

So...Let's get back to the question I asked you. If during the campaign if the Russians had:
1) paid Bill Clinton a half million dollars, and,
2) said something bad about Hillary to Donald, Jr.

Which one should we be more concerned about? This can't be an unfair question.
 
I guess the free market has spoken. People wanna hear from engaging speakers, not donks or olds.
 
jhmd2000 said:
So...Let's get back to the question I asked you. If during the campaign if the Russians had:
1) paid Bill Clinton a half million dollars, and,
2) said something bad about Hillary to Donald, Jr.

Which one should we be more concerned about? This can't be an unfair question.
Click to expand...

Which paid speeches did he give to foreign governments? I see a bunch of private companies listed a few pages back.
 
jhmd2000 said:
So...Let's get back to the question I asked you. If during the campaign if the Russians had:
1) paid Bill Clinton a half million dollars, and,
2) said something bad about Hillary to Donald, Jr.

Which one should we be more concerned about? This can't be an unfair question.
Click to expand...

The Russians didn't pay Bill Clinton during the campaign. I know you will continue to put on your clown nose and floppy shoes and play this game instead of admitting, that you don't think the Clintons sold out US interests for $500K and that is just a great talking point for you to continuously throw out there while omitting tons of material facts. Kind of like how you do on the email issues. Its how you roll, king of bullshit.
 
I'll also be curious what the difference is between "We have dirt on your opponent" and "This is my last election, afterwards, I will have more 'flexibility.'" Is in your mind.

One is an unsolicited request, while the other is a promised reversal in posture, post-election. Not saying it is ourside his authority, I am just imagining the hysterics here if Trump/surrogate had been caught telling a Russian diplomat "lay low until after the election, I will come around to your request when I am beyond the voters reach." The OGB servers were crash.
 
ChrisL68 said:
The Russians didn't pay Bill Clinton during the campaign. I know you will continue to put on your clown nose and floppy shoes and play this game instead of admitting, that you don't think the Clintons sold out US interests for $500K and that is just a great talking point for you to continuously throw out there while omitting tons of material facts. Kind of like how you do on the email issues. Its how you roll, king of bullshit.
Click to expand...

They paid him while his wife was the Secretary of State of the United States. Fact.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I'll also be curious what the difference is between "We have dirt on your opponent" and "This is my last election, afterwards, I will have more 'flexibility.'" Is in your mind.

One is an unsolicited request, while the other is a promised reversal in posture, post-election. Not saying it is ourside his authority, I am just imagining the hysterics here if Trump/surrogate had been caught telling a Russian diplomat "lay low until after the election, I will come around to your request when I am beyond the voters reach." The OGB servers were crash.
Click to expand...

One is quite possibly illegal, while the other is a negotiating tactic of a world leader.

And for somebody who was concerned about Obama being too chummy with Russia, it is amazing how mum you are on the issue now, with the exception to still accusing Dems of being soft on Russia while turning a blind eye towards current affairs.

That's right, you washed your hands of Trump so that you can claim victory while not accepting any accountability.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top