Plus coming out of an eight year gig that pays $400,000 a year plus free housing and complaining that you are dead broke. That’s a bit less than forty years back.
Regards,
Shodan
:: Blink :: :: Blink ::
:: Crickets chirp ::
Apparently you have your head buried in the sand. It would certainly be nice if that’s the case, but you apparently think it actually is?
Oh wait, you’re the guy who wistfully looked back, from our “new politically correct” world, to the good old days when comparing a teenager to Dolly Parton was considered a compliment. After all, it was totally intended to be a self esteem boost:
So what that many adult women told you how humiliating these “compliments” were or how gross and uncomfortable they felt?
Yeah, after recalling that thread, I’m not surprised anymore.
Huh?
Huh. I assume you don’t need a cite on the eight years or the free housing.
Regards,
Shodan
What she said was true. Sure, the President had made $3,200,000 in the previous eight years. And he also had been the subject on ongoing legal attacks. He owed over ten million dollars in legal fees.
Here’s a piece from the Washington Post. The Post is a conservative paper and the piece is broadly critical of what Hillary Clinton said. But if you get past all the stuff deriding what she said, you’ll get a brief acknowledgement that “So, yes, it is technically true the Clintons left office in debt.”
Poor Hillary - they made millions, but couldn’t hang onto it because Bill is a sleazebag. My heart bleeds for her.
Regards,
Shodan
I like how the GOP has nothing new to attack Clinton with so they drag up a 40 year old tape in hopes of…what? Proving she was too good of a lawyer?
The question had nothing to do with whether or not Bill Clinton was a sleazebag. It was whether or not Hillary Clinton was broke in 2000. She was.
It’s interesting to compare your posts here to your posts in the current thread about George Bush. In both threads, I’ve pointed out that your opinions of what happened is at odds with the documented facts. Your posts here can be summed up as “She lied. Even if what she said was true.” Your posts there can be summed up as “He told the truth. Even if what he said was a lie.”
Seems a little unfair to hold her husband’s philandering against her. Even for you.
Well, that and the witch hunts. The more things change, eh?
Yeah, it’s not like she cut somebody’s hair.
The problem, or part of it, with Hillary is that this attitude that she is to be pitied is ongoing. Witness her latest assertion that $100 million doesn’t make one “truly well off”, that she pays only “ordinary income tax”, and that collecting $200,000 fees for giving speeches is “hard work”. It’s the sense of entitlement - that she is so much better than anyone else that people ought to hand her money and do her bidding.
It’s why she violated the law by keeping her meetings about HillaryCare secret, or her sneering response to complaints that her health plan would drive small businesses under - “I can’t be expected to save every under-capitalized entrepeneur in America”. She honestly thinks she is better than everyone else, and cannot understand how everyone else doesn’t see it too.
The knock on Romney was that he was rich and out of touch. And now Hillary is wandering about wondering why other people with financial problems don’t just go to Nigeria and give a speech at $700,000 a crack as Bill did. And people struggling to make the mortgage aren’t likely to have their hearts sing in resonance with Hillary when she complains about how hard it was to come up with down payments - on $2.85 million properties. And if you are having trouble coming up with the money, just borrow $1.35 million from your friends. Problem solved!
The fact that she keeps making these gaffes shows that she doesn’t really get it. Funny that the Co-President of the first black President has so many white people problems.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a good point, actually: she seems to have a lot of the same tone deafness issues Romney did.
These sorts of Romneyesque gaffes (like the ‘we weren’t really rich’ thing) are a problem for Hillary in the primary, but probably not the general election (assuming she wins the primary). It’s a ‘not liberal enough’ problem. Just as Romney hurt himself for the general by being too far right on some things (like the 47% stuff), Hillary could hurt herself for the general if she goes too far left. But a not-left-enough problem? Unlikely to hurt her in the general, especially considering that if she makes it to the general election, she will already have found a way to neutralize this particular line of attack.
So, IOW, you admit you were wrong. Thanks.
If you want to make things up, you’re welcome.
Regards,
Shodan
That really depends on the GOP candidate. Democrats like to assume that the Republican will automatically be hobbled by being a member of the Party of the Rich, but remember that GWB defeated(sort of) two Democratic candidates by seeming more like a man of the people. Clinton is vulnerable to the same sort of undermining, and given the backgrounds of the GOP candidates, all of whom are middle class, it won’t be hard for them to be “the guy you’d like to have a beer with.”
… they can’t just be “the guy you’d hate having a beer with least”, though. GWB at least seemed fun (the first time). Can you honestly say if you had a beer with Ted Cruz you wouldn’t be thinking about breaking the bottle over his head the whole time?
Cruz is an interesting case because the reality of Cruz is different from the perception. He’s a brilliant guy, a Harvard grad, but he comes off as an extremist. He’s too smart to not be playing a role. And I don’t really think he comes off as genuine. I don’t take him seriously as a Presidential candidate.
I did forget one guy when I said what I said: Jeb Bush. Jeb is Romney ver. 2.0. Probably not the best guy to put up against Hillary Clinton because he neutralizes her weaknesses.
Edit: Sorry, Princeton, then Harvard Law school, and before that, valedictorian at his high school. This is one of the smartest guys in Congress. He’s got to be playing a role that he thinks will further his political career.
Dude - I don’t always agree with what you write - but most of it is clever and has a sound basis in reasoning, with this sort of post you are out there in Adaher land…