Saturday, May 16, 2015

Questioning Hillary's Sincerity...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton got most of their income from speaking engagements, a campaign aide said. Credit Isaac Brekken for The New York Times        

Does anyone really believe after reading the following that Hillary Rodham Clinton, a multi-millionaire, is the least bit interested in those outside of her social and financial networks? If anyone does there's a bridge to nowhere for sale just waiting for the American electorate to purchase it.

The New York Times - Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations, according to financial disclosure forms filed with federal elections officials on Friday.

The sum, which makes Mrs. Clinton among the wealthiest of the 2016 presidential candidates, could create challenges for the former secretary of state as she tries to cast herself as a champion of everyday Americans in an era of income inequality.

The $25 million in speaking fees since the beginning of last year continue a lucrative trend for the Clintons: They have now earned more than $125 million on the circuit since leaving the White House in 2001.

In addition, the report shows, Mrs. Clinton reported income exceeding $5 million from her memoir of her time as secretary of state, “Hard Choices.”

The Clintons’ riches have already become a subject of political attacks, and her campaign has been eager to showcase Mrs. Clinton as a more down-to-earth figure. Her only declared Democratic opponent at this point, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is an avowed socialist, while Republicans like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin have considerably more modest means.

SKIP

The Clintons have come under increasing scrutiny for their financial activities since she announced her run for president last month. Much of the attention has been focused on the Clinton Foundation and the donations it received from foreign entities during the time that she was secretary of state.

But the couple has also faced criticism for giving highly paid speeches to certain groups, particularly the financial industry.

The speaking circuit has enriched many well-known Washington figures and former presidents, but the exorbitant pay for light work can distance them from the realities most Americans experience at their jobs. In one case, the report shows, Mrs. Clinton received $100,000 for a speech to the California Medical Association — by satellite. {Read the Full Story}

Via: Memeorandum

24 comments:

  1. I think her heart is in the right place. She would make a good President, I think. Playing ball nowadays at the top of the American ladder is unclean business. I think she understands that. I think as President it would not affect her the way it did GWB, or even her husband. She seems pretty headstrong.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that is either wishful thinking or party loyalty talking Jersey. As much as Bernie Sanders scares the hell out if my sensibilities at least he is straight forward and I believe honest. I wouldn't vote for him but at least he has it all over Hillary in integrity.

      Delete
    2. Les, I'm not a personal fan of Clinton's, but I do think, in her own way, her heart is in the right place. Most of the issues people have with her are either silly BS, or the same thing that could be said of anyone in her position.

      In the end, the choice is not going to be between Sanders and anyone, but between Clinton and a Republican, and that choice leaves me no choice. Clinton will have to do. And that's why she will win.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. I am certainly no fan of Hillary myself. She has a great deal of baggage to overcome and unlike you I do not think her heart is "in the right place". Further it is important when leading to lead from the head and not the heart.

      Delete
  2. RN: Her heart is in her quest for personal power and wealth. Like most politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...and the measure of a politician's success is the degree to which they can fool people into thinking that their heart is in anything other than their own personal power, glory,and wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is all too true I fear. There really is little difference in primary motivation (at its base) between democrats and republicans. You cannot trust either party as they are both corrupt and totally self serving. Perhaps a small difference is the democratic party puts on a benign face to masks its true face while the GOP proudly puts its real face on full display.

    Long term the both paths leads the nation to nowhere.

    Cynicism ain't pretty but I've become quite cynical.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You say little difference for this aspect. On this, I say no difference at all. Looking at them as politicians. The only overall difference is where the check marks end up, on a list of issues/ideological questions.

    Partisans drinking the kool-aid will disagree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Libertarian kool-aid drinkers like to cr@p on our representatives because they loath the idea of The People's will being done. For most of them it's all about the will of the plutocrats. Of course it does not help that these plutocrats have corrupted our democracy... But the answer is to reform the system, not chuck it out.

      There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans by the way. Democrats believe power should reside with the people. Republicans believe power should reside with the rich people and they should help them (and use government to become rich and powerful themselves). Libertarians also believe that power should reside with the rich people, although they reject the idea that government should help the rich people in keeping the power (and becoming more powerful).

      This is why Les views Bernie Sanders as straight forward and I honest. Bernie has rejected the plutocrats attempts to bribe him. But Senator Sanders also believes that power should reside with The People... And not the rich people. Which is why (I would guess) Les also says Bernie Sanders scares the hell out if his sensibilities (although Les likely disagree with my assessment).

      Delete
    2. We do not now nor have we every had a democracy. We are a democratic REPUBLIC, there is a difference Dervish.

      Bernie Sanders is too far to the left for me Dervish and ultimately leftists in general can be just as corrupt as the right; history has ample examples.

      Having said the above I will clarify, I do not believe Bernie Sandars is corrupt as an individual and I do believe he is honest. It's the leftist ideology as practiced by far too many that is corrupt.

      Your apparent dislike or dosfaim for everyone right of left Dervish is troubling and exposes your in my opinion extreme partisanship.

      Delete
    3. RN: ...ultimately leftists in general can be just as corrupt as the right; history has ample examples.

      The reason for this is quite simple... The people yearn for socialism, making it an easy sell for those who wish to get into power for their own selfish reasons. These people promise socialism but deliver tyranny (with a socialist veneer). Anyone (and Les is correct that history is rife with examples) who would do his is evil, IMO. I would absolutely never "worship" any such liar, contrary to what some have said.

      Delete
  6. The question is, would a Hillary 1st term be a 3rd Clinton term or a 3rd Obama term? My fear is that it would be the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RN: We do not now nor have we every had a democracy. We are a democratic REPUBLIC, there is a difference Dervish.

    Democratic = democracy. You contradict yourself within your own comment. As for my distain for the Right, you are correct. Because to move to the Right is to side with the wealthy elites, while moving to the Left indicates siding with The People and Democracy.

    Hillary Clinton, like Obama and her husband before her, has moved to the Left because it will help her in the election (given that the Left represents what the people really want). She will, if elected, move back to the center Right. But she will still be Left of any Republican... Which is why I'll vote for her in the likely event she wins the nomination over (my choice) Bernie Sanders.

    "Extreme partisan" in my case is voting for and supporting Democrats simply because doing so frequently represents the best of two bad options.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I did not, but I will not waste my precious time arguing with you. We are a democratic republic. IOW, a representative democracy. We are not a true democracy whether you like it or not. Discussion CLOSED.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not use the term "true democracy". I said "democracy" and you said "no". Argue if you like, but the dictionary agrees with me... [Quote] democracy, definition: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. link.

      Delete
  9. Last time I checked, Hillary was supposed to be the president in 2009 instead of BHO.

    It's her time. There is nothing that any of you men can do. It will happen.

    Focus on running a good republican against her in 2020, if there are still any contenders. Build up the republican female politicians. This is the salvation of the entire world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make the point well Flying Junior.

      Republicans, if they are to remain a viable source of political influence as a party must become more inclusive of minorities. Yes, the party needs to focus on finding and developing visionary candidates be they women or men.

      Whether or not it is Hillary's time will be decided in early November 2016. I've never been one for cornations.

      I'm not convinced women will be the salvation of humanity or the entire world.

      Delete
  10. It is with no cynicism or hesitation I say the Democrats in general are better people and better for the country.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spoken like a true dyed in the wool partisan. Each to their own.

      Delete
    2. Jersey: I could see that if someone has general ideological agreement with a group, one could say the latter of them, "better for the country"

      But I just can't imagine saying the "better people" thing. A lot of those whose policies we agree with (speaking generally) are right bastards, and there are some really nice men and women who vote for awful things.

      Delete
    3. No doubt, dmarks,

      There are beautiful people of every stripe. We are all humans. Best stick together.

      Delete
    4. Thank you dmarks and Flying Junior.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.