Hillary ahead by only 4 pts -- how is this possible??!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why in the world would Hillary be doing this for money? That makes ZERO sense. The woman can command hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. She already has a boatload of money. I'm sorry, I don't think she is doing this for the money.

I think that Hillary actually believes she is going to do good work. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know.

It’s not money. It is power, baby, power.
The Clintons have always been about power.

"Power?" Power in service of WHAT?

And of course, the question is, what person who would run for president is uninterested in power?

Or is it bad for Hillary because she is a woman?

[Anonymous]

Ugh. I hate autocorrect most times. But you get the gist. Trump owes Russia and Putin will control Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why in the world would Hillary be doing this for money? That makes ZERO sense. The woman can command hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. She already has a boatload of money. I'm sorry, I don't think she is doing this for the money.

I think that Hillary actually believes she is going to do good work. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know.

It’s not money. It is power, baby, power.
The Clintons have always been about power.

"Power?" Power in service of WHAT?

And of course, the question is, what person who would run for president is uninterested in power?

Or is it bad for Hillary because she is a woman?

Women are not supposed to crave power. It's so unladylike

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate autocorrect most times. But you get the gist. Trump owes Russia and Putin will control Trump.

As opposed to Clinton, who already has taken money from Putin and the Russians in exchange for 1/3 of our uranium supply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate autocorrect most times. But you get the gist. Trump owes Russia and Putin will control Trump.

As opposed to Clinton, who already has taken money from Putin and the Russians in exchange for 1/3 of our uranium supply?

A person who reads would recognize that this has been debunked by multiple reliable sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate autocorrect most times. But you get the gist. Trump owes Russia and Putin will control Trump.

As opposed to Clinton, who already has taken money from Putin and the Russians in exchange for 1/3 of our uranium supply?

A person who reads would recognize that this has been debunked by multiple reliable sources.

yea, thanks for correcting me. It was only 20% of our uranium, not 1/3. My bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate autocorrect most times. But you get the gist. Trump owes Russia and Putin will control Trump.

As opposed to Clinton, who already has taken money from Putin and the Russians in exchange for 1/3 of our uranium supply?

A person who reads would recognize that this has been debunked by multiple reliable sources.

yea, thanks for correcting me. It was only 20% of our uranium, not 1/3. My bad.

You still can't read and comprehend. It's been repeatedly debunked idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate autocorrect most times. But you get the gist. Trump owes Russia and Putin will control Trump.

As opposed to Clinton, who already has taken money from Putin and the Russians in exchange for 1/3 of our uranium supply?

A person who reads would recognize that this has been debunked by multiple reliable sources.

yea, thanks for correcting me. It was only 20% of our uranium, not 1/3. My bad.

You still can't read and comprehend. It's been repeatedly debunked idiot.

Debunked by the approved sources Obama suggested we have? That's the goal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand it- lots of people are f-ing stupid.

Actually, they don't like being lied to and manipulated by false information. Do you not understand that many people don't trust HRC? That doesn't make them stupid.

+ 1 the OP is acting as though the Dems have a great candidate and it's incredible that she's in such a tight race with a totally unqualified person. Don't the Dems get that she is a completely unethical person, corrupt to the core, and lies to the public repeatedly? And that 2/3 of Americans think she should have been prosecuted for gross negligence (at a minimum) regarding classified material? That it bothers people that she bribes foreign governments with taxpayer money? That the department she ran tried to bribe the FBI to change the classified markings (in connection with her FBI investigation? That she committed perjury in her testimony to Congress? That she destroyed evidence under subpoena?. The corruption and disregard for law never ends with this woman.

And don't come back at me with all the crap about Trump. I know he's no prize. Why can't you see the same about your queen? There is a reason she isn't 50 points ahead against a buffoon like Trump - and that's because she's just as bad. (In fact, nearly half of voters think she's worse.)

Because half of voters listen to lies about her. If everything you believe were actually even remotely true, she would be in prison.

Thing is, it's not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why in the world would Hillary be doing this for money? That makes ZERO sense. The woman can command hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. She already has a boatload of money. I'm sorry, I don't think she is doing this for the money.

I think that Hillary actually believes she is going to do good work. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know.

It’s not money. It is power, baby, power.
The Clintons have always been about power.

"Power?" Power in service of WHAT?

And of course, the question is, what person who would run for president is uninterested in power?

Or is it bad for Hillary because she is a woman?

Power ... political royalty ... history books. She's a narcissist.

[Anonymous]

"Power in what capacity?"

Oh idk, maybe bombing the shit out of some Middle East countries, shooting down Russian jets, hacking Russia & China, etc. She's a hawk and flexing military and intelligence muscle will give her a bigger orgasm than Bill ever has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. I hate autocorrect most times. But you get the gist. Trump owes Russia and Putin will control Trump.

As opposed to Clinton, who already has taken money from Putin and the Russians in exchange for 1/3 of our uranium supply?

A person who reads would recognize that this has been debunked by multiple reliable sources.

yea, thanks for correcting me. It was only 20% of our uranium, not 1/3. My bad.

You still can't read and comprehend. It's been repeatedly debunked idiot.

Debunked by the approved sources Obama suggested we have? That's the goal

You really are dumber than a box of rocks.

[Anonymous]

That derailed fast.

Anyway, I want the polls to show a tight race. Trump up by a few points would work for me. I need all my liberal friends to be TERRIFIED of a Trump win, same way they were terrified of a Romney win in 2012, so that all of us shows up to VOTE. It's not in the bag until everyone actually shows up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why in the world would Hillary be doing this for money? That makes ZERO sense. The woman can command hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. She already has a boatload of money. I'm sorry, I don't think she is doing this for the money.




Do you really think that if Hillary were retired from the government that she could command such outlandishly high speaking fees??? No, she has the power to shape policy and grant favors, and her speaking fees are a reflection of that. Do you think it's coincidental that under Sec of State Clinton that Russia got 20% control of U.S. uranium and Bill was paid $500,000 for one speech?


ABC News:
After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows.

Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China.

NY Times
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why in the world would Hillary be doing this for money? That makes ZERO sense. The woman can command hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. She already has a boatload of money. I'm sorry, I don't think she is doing this for the money.

I think that Hillary actually believes she is going to do good work. Whether that is the case or not, I don't know.

It’s not money. It is power, baby, power.
The Clintons have always been about power.

"Power?" Power in service of WHAT?

And of course, the question is, what person who would run for president is uninterested in power?

Or is it bad for Hillary because she is a woman?

There goes that woman card again, now go ahead and cry if I hurt your feelings.