Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Hillary's ongoing Bitter, Bitchy, Tantrum...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hillary's ongoing Bitter, Bitchy, Tantrum...

    I actually looked around and could not find any existing topics on Hillary's bible of bitterness "What Happened", I must have overlooked it, because I cannot imagine we never discussed it when it first came out.

    Anyway, with Hillary's most recent (albeit typical) comments I felt it was worth returning to this topic. Hillary partially blames her loss on (in her view) weak-willed white women who feel pressure to vote the way the men in their lives want them to:

    "We do not do well with white men and we dont do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."

    However, by all accounts, if just one more woman in this country would have listed to her husband, Hillary would have won. That one woman...HILLARY! By all accounts, Bill Clinton (who unlike Hillary did not ride his spouse's coattails into political relevance) was raising warning alarms with the campaign on messaging, prioritization of campaign time and resources, believing that despite what the "big data" said, his gut was telling him that they were in trouble with some key blue-color parts of the democratic coalition dating back to his time in office. Hillary of course being strong, smart, talented politician in her own right (all evidence to the contrary) did what any strong, smart woman would do...she ignored her husband, because she is well a SHE!

    This of course brings us to the other laughably stale claim that it was just a bunch of racists that denied her the win. Yes, a bunch of people who had actually voted for Barack Obama (who either didn't bother to vote at all, or swung to Trump) suddenly became racists? Given how stupid Hillary thinks these people are, I am sure she can convince herself that these people either suddenly became racists (how that explains them voting for a Black man, but not for a white woman is beyond me), or were oblivious to the fact that someone named Barack Hussein Obama was not white, but please...seriously?

    Hillary has never shown a fraction of the political skill or knowledge that her husband has. Respect him as a person or not, agree or disagree with him on policy or not, you have to give Bill Clinton his due as a political talent. I think Hillary by and large dislikes and looks down upon the average American. Bill Clinton, for all of his many deep faults, does not look down on people in the same way his wife does. This comes through in how those people perceive them. It was always just assumed that her political instincts were on par with his, but there has never been any evidence to support that belief, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. During his first term, many of the things that came back to bite him politically were her doing (her imperious, ill-concieved, authoritarian efforts at reforming healthcare), the FBI files, etc. etc.. But wait, her fans will say...she clearly established herself as a political talent in her own right by becoming Senator from New York. Well, ummm, it was New York! Where any democrat would have a built in advantage, let alone one with national resources and name recognition. She would have had ZERO chance of running for Senate and winning in Arkansas, and would have had to primary an incumbent in Illinois. A democrat winning in New York state-wide is not exactly evidence of being a political savant.

  • #2
    Hilary has long been known to be a rather unpleasant woman.

    Besides being married to good old Bill, losing a presidential election (which she would have made history in being the first female president), now she has even more reasons to be angry.

    She's having trouble standing up and walking ! She's been teetering and tottering for awhile if memory serves, and here we have another instance.

    I expect more unreasonable tirades from this poor woman.

    Maybe she should take it easy and consider being a grandma soon - staying out of the nasty business of politricks... just an idea.

    What's an old lady to do ? LOL

    Go about making idiotic claims that women are so weak and stupid that their men are making them vote in certain ways LOL

    Oh hilary, stop embarrassing yourself ! Take some time for some leg and core strengthening exercises !

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was treated for a minor injury at an India hospital after suffering an injury at her hotel, confirmed the CEO of the hospital.

    The news breaks just days after video of Hillary falling down steps in India went viral.

    Suresh Goyal, CEO of Goyal Hospital in Jodhpur, confirmed Hillary was at his hospital "for about 15-20 minutes" for treatment on Wednesday.

    Mr. Goyal, however, would not say what the twice-failed presidential candidate was treated for, though an anonymous hotel worker has reportedly revealed that the injury was to her wrist.

    "An employee of Jodhpur's Umaid Bhawan Palace hotel, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said Clinton had stayed there and had sprained her wrist," reports ABC.

    But the unnamed hotel employee says the injury did not happen on hotel property.

    Hillary "wore a scarf over her right arm and hand as she toured monuments in the city of Jaipur," notes ABC.



    https://www.dailywire.com/news/28344...ign=benshapiro

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
      Hilary has long been known to be a rather unpleasant woman.

      Besides being married to good old Bill, losing a presidential election (which she would have made history in being the first female president), now she has even more reasons to be angry.

      She's having trouble standing up and walking ! She's been teetering and tottering for awhile if memory serves, and here we have another instance.

      I expect more unreasonable tirades from this poor woman.

      Maybe she should take it easy and consider being a grandma soon - staying out of the nasty business of politricks... just an idea.

      What's an old lady to do ? LOL

      Go about making idiotic claims that women are so weak and stupid that their men are making them vote in certain ways LOL

      Oh hilary, stop embarrassing yourself ! Take some time for some leg and core strengthening exercises !

      ----------------------------------------------------

      Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was treated for a minor injury at an India hospital after suffering an injury at her hotel, confirmed the CEO of the hospital.

      The news breaks just days after video of Hillary falling down steps in India went viral.

      Suresh Goyal, CEO of Goyal Hospital in Jodhpur, confirmed Hillary was at his hospital "for about 15-20 minutes" for treatment on Wednesday.

      Mr. Goyal, however, would not say what the twice-failed presidential candidate was treated for, though an anonymous hotel worker has reportedly revealed that the injury was to her wrist.

      "An employee of Jodhpur's Umaid Bhawan Palace hotel, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said Clinton had stayed there and had sprained her wrist," reports ABC.

      But the unnamed hotel employee says the injury did not happen on hotel property.

      Hillary "wore a scarf over her right arm and hand as she toured monuments in the city of Jaipur," notes ABC.



      https://www.dailywire.com/news/28344...ign=benshapiro
      I have to take you to task refer to her as a "poor" woman, she is far from poor, she is in fact extremely rich. The question is, there are three ways to get rich (as opposed to richer), luck (as with the lottery), crime, or selling a good or service that people value tremendously on the free market. My question is, what exactly was the good or service the Clinton's were selling so successfully?

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

        I have to take you to task refer to her as a "poor" woman, she is far from poor, she is in fact extremely rich. The question is, there are three ways to get rich (as opposed to richer), luck (as with the lottery), crime, or selling a good or service that people value tremendously on the free market. My question is, what exactly was the good or service the Clinton's were selling so successfully?
        I know she's made some money by writing books and through speaking fees.I think her tax returns must be online somewhere that would be a good place to check.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          I know she's made some money by writing books and through speaking fees.I think her tax returns must be online somewhere that would be a good place to check.
          Yeah since everyone wants to see trumps so bad, we should want to see her and bills too.

          Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

          I have to take you to task refer to her as a "poor" woman, she is far from poor, she is in fact extremely rich. The question is, there are three ways to get rich (as opposed to richer), luck (as with the lottery), crime, or selling a good or service that people value tremendously on the free market. My question is, what exactly was the good or service the Clinton's were selling so successfully?
          I have no idea, but they sure did sell it didn't they ?

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
            I actually looked around and could not find any existing topics on Hillary's bible of bitterness "What Happened", I must have overlooked it, because I cannot imagine we never discussed it when it first came out.

            Anyway, with Hillary's most recent (albeit typical) comments I felt it was worth returning to this topic. Hillary partially blames her loss on (in her view) weak-willed white women who feel pressure to vote the way the men in their lives want them to:

            "We do not do well with white men and we dont do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."

            However, by all accounts, if just one more woman in this country would have listed to her husband, Hillary would have won. That one woman...HILLARY! By all accounts, Bill Clinton (who unlike Hillary did not ride his spouse's coattails into political relevance) was raising warning alarms with the campaign on messaging, prioritization of campaign time and resources, believing that despite what the "big data" said, his gut was telling him that they were in trouble with some key blue-color parts of the democratic coalition dating back to his time in office. Hillary of course being strong, smart, talented politician in her own right (all evidence to the contrary) did what any strong, smart woman would do...she ignored her husband, because she is well a SHE!

            This of course brings us to the other laughably stale claim that it was just a bunch of racists that denied her the win. Yes, a bunch of people who had actually voted for Barack Obama (who either didn't bother to vote at all, or swung to Trump) suddenly became racists? Given how stupid Hillary thinks these people are, I am sure she can convince herself that these people either suddenly became racists (how that explains them voting for a Black man, but not for a white woman is beyond me), or were oblivious to the fact that someone named Barack Hussein Obama was not white, but please...seriously?

            Hillary has never shown a fraction of the political skill or knowledge that her husband has. Respect him as a person or not, agree or disagree with him on policy or not, you have to give Bill Clinton his due as a political talent. I think Hillary by and large dislikes and looks down upon the average American. Bill Clinton, for all of his many deep faults, does not look down on people in the same way his wife does. This comes through in how those people perceive them. It was always just assumed that her political instincts were on par with his, but there has never been any evidence to support that belief, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. During his first term, many of the things that came back to bite him politically were her doing (her imperious, ill-concieved, authoritarian efforts at reforming healthcare), the FBI files, etc. etc.. But wait, her fans will say...she clearly established herself as a political talent in her own right by becoming Senator from New York. Well, ummm, it was New York! Where any democrat would have a built in advantage, let alone one with national resources and name recognition. She would have had ZERO chance of running for Senate and winning in Arkansas, and would have had to primary an incumbent in Illinois. A democrat winning in New York state-wide is not exactly evidence of being a political savant.
            Oh yes Hillary is she out of prison already? I thought we were going to lock her up.Another broken promise.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              Oh yes Hillary is she out of prison already? I thought we were going to lock her up.Another broken promise.
              Why lock a criminal up ?

              We selectively apply and enforce our laws anyways ! No big deal.

              But hey, Hilary decided that she's NOT going to run in the 2020 election.

              That's some news anyways. She has to get out of Bernies way !

              There's even a video to see here of this hilary woman that everyone loves so much !

              She says;

              We have to work really, really hard to make our case to the American people, and I'm gonna do everything I can to help the Democrats win back the White House."

              Excellent !! Hilary is going to help democrats "win back the Whitehouse" !!!

              She does seem to be quite a bit less bitter & bitchy

              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              'I'm not running': Hillary Clinton rules out 2020 bid for first time on camera in exclusive interview with News 12

              Hillary Clinton ruled out a 2020 presidential run for the first time on camera in an exclusive interview with News 12, pledging instead to take an active role by working with the candidates in the crowded Democratic field.

              "I'm not running, but I'm going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe," she told News 12's Tara Rosenblum.

              In her first local TV interview since the midterm elections, the former first lady and secretary of state opened up about 2016, 2020 and beyond. She expressed deep concerns about the state of American politics today -- and vowed to be vocal about those concerns.

              "I want to be sure that people understand I'm going to keep speaking out," Clinton said. "I'm not going anywhere. What's at stake in our country, the kind of things that are happening right now are deeply troubling to me. And I'm also thinking hard about how do we start talking and listening to each other again? We've just gotten so polarized. We've gotten into really opposing camps unlike anything I've ever seen in my adult life."

              Clinton pledged to take an active role in 2020 as the field of Democratic candidates continues to expand. She's already held private meetings with many of the candidates, and she revealed the substance of some of those closed-door discussions.

              "I've told every one of them, don't take anything for granted, even though we have a long list of real problems and broken promises from this administration that need to be highlighted," Clinton said. "People need to understand that in many cases, they were sold a bill of goods. We can't take anything for granted. We have to work really, really hard to make our case to the American people, and I'm gonna do everything I can to help the Democrats win back the White House."

              Asked if she would ever run for elected office again, such as for New York governor or mayor, Clinton said, "I don't think so, but I love living in New York and I'm so grateful that I had the chance to be a senator for eight years and to work with people across our state." She added, "I care deeply about the future of New York and so, again, I'm gonna do what I can to help support candidates and causes that I think are continuing to make New York a better and better place."

              As she works to help her party, Clinton says she's also enjoying a peaceful life as an author, advocate and grandmother in the suburbs of Westchester County. She has two grandchildren, with another on the way this summer.



              http://westchester.news12.com/story/...w-with-news-12

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by redrover View Post

                Oh yes Hillary is she out of prison already? I thought we were going to lock her up.Another broken promise.
                Youre so completely devoid of rational thought, youre responding to Marcus post from a year ago.

                way to go, but it took you that long to come up with this? I expected a lot better after that long.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  Oh yes Hillary is she out of prison already? I thought we were going to lock her up.Another broken promise.
                  This must be a universal trait of all Trumpsters. As your deranged cult leader spends his weekend putting out 50 tweets including his usual attacks on McCain.And here you are still obsessing about Hillary. So very weird.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post
                    This must be a universal trait of all Trumpsters. As your deranged cult leader spends his weekend putting out 50 tweets including his usual attacks on McCain.And here you are still obsessing about Hillary. So very weird.
                    What ?

                    Your obsession with Trump is better than our obsession with hilary ?

                    You think your better than us ? I thought we were all equal, I thought diversity was something good and all ... maybe not ...?? LOL

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Now hilary is going around saying that the election for president of the United States, was stolen from her !

                      Thank Heavens this stupid woman lost the election !!

                      The new thing for democrats to do if they lose, is claim they lost because it was stolen from them !?!?

                      Very sick.

                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Hillary Clinton is now beyond partisan.

                      This is the latest from the woman who can't stop coming up with excuses:

                      Hillary Clinton suggested she had the 2016 election "stolen" from her during the latest stop of her slumping speaking tour.

                      Taking the stage with her husband Bill in Los Angeles Saturday night as part of the couple's "Evening with the Clintons" tour, the former Democratic presidential nominee told the crowd she has been warning potential candidates they could suffer the same fate.

                      She is not alone, as the story points out:
                      On Friday, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams again claimed she won the state's 2018 gubernatorial race, despite losing to now-Gov. Brian Kemp. "I'm here to tell you a secret that makes Breitbart and [Fox News host] Tucker Carlson go crazy: We won," Abrams said, according to the Houston Chronicle. "I am not delusional. I know I am not the governor of Georgia possibly yet."

                      .. So Hillary lost the electoral college, 306-232, but somehow thinks that the election was stolen.

                      John Kerry (242) and Al Gore (267) did better than she did!

                      Miss Abrams lost by 55,000 votes in Georgia, but that was stolen, too!

                      We desperately need a Democrat to stand up and tell these two ladies to stop talking about fraud unless they can prove it.

                      Better than that, we could use a news media to challenge these reckless statements.

                      Maybe CNN could get back in the game by challenging Clinton and Abrams to prove their cases.

                      Such a segment may do better than another round of anti-Trump panels.



                      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._election.html

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                        Now hilary is going around saying that the election for president of the United States, was stolen from her !

                        Thank Heavens this stupid woman lost the election !!

                        The new thing for democrats to do if they lose, is claim they lost because it was stolen from them !?!?

                        Very sick.

                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Hillary Clinton is now beyond partisan.

                        This is the latest from the woman who can't stop coming up with excuses:

                        Hillary Clinton suggested she had the 2016 election "stolen" from her during the latest stop of her slumping speaking tour.

                        Taking the stage with her husband Bill in Los Angeles Saturday night as part of the couple's "Evening with the Clintons" tour, the former Democratic presidential nominee told the crowd she has been warning potential candidates they could suffer the same fate.

                        She is not alone, as the story points out:
                        On Friday, Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams again claimed she won the state's 2018 gubernatorial race, despite losing to now-Gov. Brian Kemp. "I'm here to tell you a secret that makes Breitbart and [Fox News host] Tucker Carlson go crazy: We won," Abrams said, according to the Houston Chronicle. "I am not delusional. I know I am not the governor of Georgia possibly yet."

                        .. So Hillary lost the electoral college, 306-232, but somehow thinks that the election was stolen.

                        John Kerry (242) and Al Gore (267) did better than she did!

                        Miss Abrams lost by 55,000 votes in Georgia, but that was stolen, too!

                        We desperately need a Democrat to stand up and tell these two ladies to stop talking about fraud unless they can prove it.

                        Better than that, we could use a news media to challenge these reckless statements.

                        Maybe CNN could get back in the game by challenging Clinton and Abrams to prove their cases.

                        Such a segment may do better than another round of anti-Trump panels.



                        https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._election.html
                        Back in the day, the Clinton's could easily get $250-500 thousand an appearance, guaranteed up front, no need to sell tickets. But that was back when she was a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, or potential future President. Now that they are out of power, and out of any realistic chance to ever be in power again, they are left with their pathetic, tacky little vaudevillian roadshow. It is said that in a free market, capitalist society, one gets rich by selling goods and services that are in high demand. Well, that begs the question, what was it they were selling back in the day, that they no longer are that explains the precipitous drop in the price people are willing to pay...

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                          Back in the day, the Clinton's could easily get $250-500 thousand an appearance, guaranteed up front, no need to sell tickets. But that was back when she was a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, or potential future President. Now that they are out of power, and out of any realistic chance to ever be in power again, they are left with their pathetic, tacky little vaudevillian roadshow. It is said that in a free market, capitalist society, one gets rich by selling goods and services that are in high demand. Well, that begs the question, what was it they were selling back in the day, that they no longer are that explains the precipitous drop in the price people are willing to pay...
                          Yes, I read that tickets to her non "events" were going at the low price of two dollars.

                          Time to pack it in hilary & bill... no ones interested any more.

                          They ought to disappear & enjoy their golden years... don't know why they wouldn't ? They have enough $$ to do anything they want.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                            Back in the day, the Clinton's could easily get $250-500 thousand an appearance, guaranteed up front, no need to sell tickets. But that was back when she was a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, or potential future President. Now that they are out of power, and out of any realistic chance to ever be in power again, they are left with their pathetic, tacky little vaudevillian roadshow. It is said that in a free market, capitalist society, one gets rich by selling goods and services that are in high demand. Well, that begs the question, what was it they were selling back in the day, that they no longer are that explains the precipitous drop in the price people are willing to pay...
                            My, the Clinton's have certainly fall far. Last I heard tickets for their current tour were being discounted to $2, and they still couldn't fill the seats.

                            They need to retire to obscurity. Had Hillary retired to obscurity, I rather doubt that the DOJ would have been inclined to re-open and re-examine Comey's legal travesty of the Hillary email scandal / white wash. But, that she's remained in the public eye, blame casting her loss on pretty much everyone and everything other than her poor campaign performance, well, she's kept herself as fair game and in play.

                            ?

                            Working...
                            X