Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[BStowers023]

Sure....I thought you were going to ask me a tough question.

 

Just because a politician gets wealthy in office doesn't mean they got wealthy because of the office.

 

The clintons are both graduates of Yale law school and worked for white shoe firms out of law school. This equates to a six figure salary (inflation adjusted) right out of school for both of them who are best described as hard chargers being top of their class.

 

By the early 1980s their investments and her high salary as a partner in a prestigious AK law firm had netted them a small fortune. By the time bill was staging to be president their collective small fortune was no longer small and Hilary was at one point on the board of directors at Walmart (a 7 figure salary).

 

The funny thing about wealth is when you have it it generates more wealth. Even though the clintons divested themselves of their business holdings during clintons presidency the money didn't just hangout static - it grew managed by the people managing the trust. By the time they left the whitehouse they were wealthier than before but not because of their position, because of those they designated to manage their money.

 

Once they are no longer in office, every president makes money off their appearances and speaking engagements, as any celebrity would. But they are no longer in office so they aren't profiting at the expense of the taxpayers.

 

Nearly Everyone who has held high office in the country is rich before they start, and taking public office doesn't slow that at all. As long as they are not profiteering personally while in office it is perfectly acceptable. In office they are accountable to the people, out of office they are not and can make money in the private sector.

 

The majority of Hillary's wealth is from speaking. While I have no issues with someone making money for speaking, I do however have an issue with a political figure making money from speaking. Isn't that part of her job? That would be like me as a Safety Manager asking my company to give me a salary and then charging them for every job-site audit that I do on top of my salary. Who's paying for the security for her to speak at these events? Does she pay for her own security out of her own pocket to speak at these events that SHE profits from? Or is it tax payers?

 

 

 

They all do, on both sides of the isle. Check out Mitch McConnell's income. Just because politicians can be bought and work for their own profit doesn't mean the government itself is.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

 

Okay so idea of the Government isn't corrupt just the "people" who work for it. That's alright I guess

[o0n8]

The majority of Hillary's wealth is from speaking. While I have no issues with someone making money for speaking, I do however have an issue with a political figure making money from speaking. Isn't that part of her job? That would be like me as a Safety Manager asking my company to give me a salary and then charging them for every job-site audit that I do on top of my salary. Who's paying for the security for her to speak at these events? Does she pay for her own security out of her own pocket to speak at these events that SHE profits from? Or is it tax payers?

 

The difference there is that you work for your company so it's a part of your job, Hillary (or any other speaker) does not.

[BStowers023]

The difference there is that you work for your company so it's a part of your job, Hillary (or any other speaker) does not.

 

 

So who's paying for her security?

[o0n8]

So who's paying for her security?

 

Why not try calling a local police department that does security for one of her speaking events?

 

Probably worked out with the company and PD that hired her and requested the extra security. That's how it works in bank branches. CPD pays x because the officer is already on duty, Bank pays y to the PD for the officer to be in the building.

[Mallard]

So who's paying for her security?

As a former first lady she gets secret service protection for life, regardless of any other role she made whole.

 

Why are you choosing to make a big deal about this, but not who is paying for Trump's family's protection while his wife and kid stayed in New York, or during his Mar-A-Lago trips? Or how the tax payers pay for the secret service to stay in rooms at Trump's resort? Or how the tax payers had to pay for secret service to 'buy tickets' to travel with Trump on his private plane during the campaign?

 

You want to take issue with Hillary getting free protection while she got paid to speak, but overlook Trump DIRECTLY PROFITING from the secret service. The tax payers have paid him millions.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[o0n8]

You want to take issue with Hillary getting free protection while she got paid to speak, but overlook Trump DIRECTLY PROFITING from the secret service. The tax payers have paid him millions.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

That's how the con works...

[BStowers023]

As a former first lady she gets secret service protection for life, regardless of any other role she made whole.

 

Why are you choosing to make a big deal about this, but not who is paying for Trump's family's protection while his wife and kid stayed in New York, or during his Mar-A-Lago trips? Or how the tax payers pay for the secret service to stay in rooms at Trump's resort? Or how the tax payers had to pay for secret service to 'buy tickets' to travel with Trump on his private plane during the campaign?

 

You want to take issue with Hillary getting free protection while she got paid to speak, but overlook Trump DIRECTLY PROFITING from the secret service. The tax payers have paid him millions.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

 

Just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean I overlooked it. It would probably take me over a year to write out all of the ridiculous shit us tax payers pay for in regards to Politicians. I don't think ANY OF IT is okay.

[Geeto67]

The majority of Hillary's wealth is from speaking. While I have no issues with someone making money for speaking, I do however have an issue with a political figure making money from speaking. Isn't that part of her job? That would be like me as a Safety Manager asking my company to give me a salary and then charging them for every job-site audit that I do on top of my salary. Who's paying for the security for her to speak at these events? Does she pay for her own security out of her own pocket to speak at these events that SHE profits from? Or is it tax payers?

 

 

I can see where you are confused. Let me see if this clears it up:

 

When she holds no office and isn't running for anything, she gives speeches. This is completely allowed, not illegal, not profiteering, and not hurting the American public. The money comes from private organizations like businesses and charities. It does not come from the taxpayers directly. Since she is not employed by the government she is completely free and clear to do so and pocket the money.

 

When she is actively campaigning for a position she may charge to give speeches as part of fundraising activities. Again the money comes from the private sector and it goes to the campaign, which may pay her a small salary. Again no money from taxpayers, and she doesn't get to keep all of it, the lions share goes to the campaign. Politicians cannot do campaign activities and pocket the whole sum.

 

When she holds office and isn't campaigning, she gives speeches as part of her role. The government pays her travel expenses but she does not get a speaking fee. As far as I know neither her nor bill have charged for speeches in officer related to their job, and not connected to campaigning. If you are alleging otherwise I ask you to prove it.

 

There is another type of paid speeches politicians can give for money in office but it is exceedingly rare. That is the paid speech not related to their political position. For example, say you are the elected dog catcher of Dublin Ohio, but in your spare time to are an astronomer. The local astronomy club asks you to give a speech about the Orion constellation and pays you $150 for you to do it. You can take that money because it isn't related to your job, as long as you don't use other government resources to travel there (local politicians get into this trouble all the time by using state air travel resources for personal use). If the speech were on new dog catching methods you couldn't take the money, but since it isn't you are in the clear. I don't think the clintons have done this either, but it exists and other politicians have done this in the past.

 

 

The clintons are worth about $110 million, most of which was amassed from Hilliary's time as an Atty, investments, her board positions, and bills speaking engagements post president when he was neither holding office nor campaigning. Her and Bills current source of income comes from giving speeches but neither are actively campaigning or holding office. None of this is corruption.

 

The only example that fits your analogy is the one they didn't do. So again, if you think that is what happened, prove it.

[Mallard]

Just because I didn't mention it, doesn't mean I overlooked it. It would probably take me over a year to write out all of the ridiculous shit us tax payers pay for in regards to Politicians. I don't think ANY OF IT is okay.

You are objecting to presidents and first lady's getting secret service protection for life?

 

Dude, we get it, you don't think the government should spend money on anything. You even object to government spending on the interstate highway system, suggesting the car companies should pay for it (like they're the only ones that benefit from roads??). I just hope you realize your platform is out on the lunatic fringe and you're not going to win any friends/convert other people's beliefs in this forum.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[BStowers023]

You are objecting to presidents and first lady's getting secret service protection for life?

 

Dude, we get it, you don't think the government should spend money on anything. You even object to government spending on the interstate highway system, suggesting the car companies should pay for it (like they're the only ones that benefit from roads??). I just hope you realize your platform is out on the lunatic fringe and you're not going to win any friends/convert other people's beliefs in this forum.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

 

Who said anything about converting anyone or making friends? I have enough friends outside of this forum and I am not looking to convert anyone. I just like the entertainment of seeing you liberal clowns get your panties in a bunch and collude with each other to attack anyone who doesn't think like you.

[Geeto67]

By the way Gerald Ford was the first modern former president to charge for speaking engagements and every president has done it since except Reagan who didn't give speeches.

 

The only president that has ever directly profited off of the secret service is Donald trump.

[Mallard]

Who said anything about converting anyone or making friends? I have enough friends outside of this forum and I am not looking to convert anyone. I just like the entertainment of seeing you liberal clowns get your panties in a bunch and collude with each other to attack anyone who doesn't think like you.

No one is colluding against you.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[o0n8]

Who said anything about converting anyone or making friends? I have enough friends outside of this forum and I am not looking to convert anyone. I just like the entertainment of seeing you liberal clowns get your panties in a bunch and collude with each other to attack anyone who doesn't think like you.

 

So you're stupid on purpose for your own entertainment.

[BStowers023]

So you're stupid on purpose for your own entertainment.

 

And you're a cuck so your gf/wife can fuck real men in front of you? Or do you prefer men yourself?

[o0n8]

And you're a cuck so your gf/wife can fuck real men in front of you? Or do you prefer men yourself?

 

That's your best comeback?

[spankis]

And you're a cuck so your gf/wife can fuck real men in front of you? Or do you prefer men yourself?

 

WOWIE

 

Firmly in alignment with your base lol

[BStowers023]

That's your best comeback?

 

And calling me stupid is yours?

[C-Mart]

And calling me stupid is yours?

 

I learned long ago that progressives don't want to debate they want to argue.

 

I have many times been wrong, changed my stance on issues, or can flat out say that I don't know. Good luck finding a progressive that will change their mind when confronted with opposing facts.

[BStowers023]

I learned long ago that progressives don't want to debate they want to argue.

 

I have many times been wrong, changed my stance on issues, or can flat out say that I don't know. Good luck finding a progressive that will change their mind when confronted with opposing facts.

 

Yep, I have no problem changing my stance. I conceided to a point Greg made earlier and I think I can come to an agreement that interstates are better off under Government control after Kerry's explanation.

 

When you care more about being right than wanting what's best for the country, you've failed. That's what the left is doing by rooting against Trumps every move regardless of how it effects them.

[o0n8]

And calling me stupid is yours?

 

Stating an opinion based off posts is much better then assuming someone has a gf/wife but you're not sure which and asking if that hypothetical gf/wife likes to have sex with other guys. Then follow that up with asking if they're gay like that it's a bad thing.

 

I guess I could have used other words like moronic, foolish, ill-advised, ludicrous or laughable, but I used the one that was simple for you to understand. Sorry I didn't use whatever buzzword Trump is using at this time since your posts are filled with them.

[Geeto67]

I learned long ago that progressives don't want to debate they want to argue.

 

I have many times been wrong, changed my stance on issues, or can flat out say that I don't know. Good luck finding a progressive that will change their mind when confronted with opposing facts.

 

I am often surprised that for a group that often promotes "personal responsibility", how little a lot of those same people are interested in taking personal responsibility for their participation in conversations.

 

Forget party position for a second, assholes attract other assholes. If your experience with enough "progressives", to generalize all of them, is one of aggression...maybe it's not them. You set the tone of the conversation that you want to have as much as the other participants - if you are saying offensive things and are expecting people to not get upset at them then you might as well end every point you try to make with "Fight me, bro".

 

From my personal experience it is a common tactic for those with conservative opinions to phrase or say some pretty offensive things followed up by this completely unrealistic expectation that people should not get offended lest they be considered weak, a pussy, a faggot, or some other pejorative term for those of lesser masculinity. And then they walk around saying things like "progressives always want to fight"...well no shit...they want to fight, because the ones who don't are smart enough to avoid you and the ones who aren't are answering your subtextual "fight me, bro" position.

 

I'm not saying you do this in particular Cmart, but I have seen it here and in real life. If all the "progressives" you are running into want to argue with you, then you should probably take a look at your approach however.

 

Also it is my personal opinion and observation that conservatives don't really have much use or regard for facts. Fight me, bro!

[BStowers023]

Stating an opinion based off posts is much better then assuming someone has a gf/wife but you're not sure which and asking if that hypothetical gf/wife likes to have sex with other guys. Then follow that up with asking if they're gay like that it's a bad thing.

 

I guess I could have used other words like moronic, foolish, ill-advised, ludicrous or laughable, but I used the one that was simple for you to understand. Sorry I didn't use whatever buzzword Trump is using at this time since your posts are filled with them.

 

You think I'm stupid and I think you're a cuck. You seem like a big pussy boy, basing that off of an opinion based off posts.

[BStowers023]

I am often surprised that for a group that often promotes "personal responsibility", how little a lot of those same people are interested in taking personal responsibility for their participation in conversations.

 

Forget party position for a second, assholes attract other assholes. If your experience with enough "progressives", to generalize all of them, is one of aggression...maybe it's not them. You set the tone of the conversation that you want to have as much as the other participants - if you are saying offensive things and are expecting people to not get upset at them then you might as well end every point you try to make with "Fight me, bro".

 

From my personal experience it is a common tactic for those with conservative opinions to phrase or say some pretty offensive things followed up by this completely unrealistic expectation that people should not get offended lest they be considered weak, a pussy, a faggot, or some other pejorative term for those of lesser masculinity. And then they walk around saying things like "progressives always want to fight"...well no shit...they want to fight, because the ones who don't are smart enough to avoid you and the ones who aren't are answering your subtextual "fight me, bro" position.

 

I'm not saying you do this in particular Cmart, but I have seen it here and in real life. If all the "progressives" you are running into want to argue with you, then you should probably take a look at your approach however.

 

Also it is my personal opinion and observation that conservatives don't really have much use or regard for facts. Fight me, bro!

 

 

Except since Trump was elected almost all of the political violence has been from the left. Take ANTIFA for example, just 1 example. There are many more examples but let's not waste each others time because we both know it's true.

[greg1647545532]

You think I'm stupid and I think you're a cuck. You seem like a big pussy boy, basing that off of an opinion based off posts.

 

Yeah, libruls are a bunch of pussy cucks who take shit from everyone!

 

Except since Trump was elected almost all of the political violence has been from the left. Take ANTIFA for example, just 1 example. There are many more examples but let's not waste each others time because we both know it's true.

 

Yeah, libruls are a bunch of violent assholes who don't take shit from anyone!

[Geeto67]

Except since Trump was elected almost all of the political violence has been from the left. Take ANTIFA for example, just 1 example. There are many more examples but let's not waste each others time because we both know it's true.

 

This is a bullshit statement and you know it. You're an intelligent guy, why do say things that aren't intelligent? are you genuinely trolling with this or do you really believe it? serious question.