No. Wikileaks, since some time by now, chooses its targets carefully. That has nothing to do with clinton alone.
Wikileaks pulls a lot of shit, from not covering some things (like anything regarding russia since some time by now), to exposing people who have done nothing wrong to danger by carelessly releasing mails from people who live in autocrat societies who will definitely get problems due to that.
Does your hate on clinton and the DNC make you blind to see that Wikileaks chooses its targets by now?
First off Wikileaks doesn't choose targets they are organization that gives a platform for whistle-blowers to reveal information on corrupt institutions and individuals. Their founder is not siting comfortably in some penthouse in Manhattan but risking his security and his life even to openly expose such secrets while living in asylum. Pretending like he has some personal stake in Trump winning is just plain silly and only feeds the desperate narrative that corrupt DNC officials exposed by such leaking wish to deflect attention from themselves and build a conspiracy theory around Russia and Trump.
I never said any democrat is honorable. Why do you want to deflect absolutely reasonable criticism of Trump with democrats?
You are the one who is talking abotu democrats when your president is likely to have at least helped other people to commit an HUGE safety risk at best and treason at worst?
Trump got where he is because of character assassination, stupidity and seemingly foreign influence taking.
A weak democratic candidate cannot explain a completely incompetent and corrupted leader, at least not alone. And don't give me the millionaire and blue collar talk when they elect a guy who is one himself and abuses his workers more than most.
I have no problem with reasonable criticism of Trump but I do have problem with false propaganda being spread as deflection of their own crimes being exposed,
Trump at least made overtures to the working class by saying he would renegotiate bad trade deals and bring jobs. He was at least talking to the working class while Hillary spent all her time talking about how bad Trump is and how he said something bad about a woman in beauty pageant 20 years ago.
Bernie spent his time talking about how he was going to make working class peoples lives better, raising minimum wage, making college near tuition free, Universal Healthcare a bold platform! People are hurting and looking for someone who will address and fix the problems and Hillary and the establishment DNC failed to even address the problems !!!!
You know their strategy was to target Republican voters as they stated by Chuck Schumer"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin"
In other words forget about our working class base and progressives lets appeal to the "moderate right wing". Now you want to blame Hillary loosing on Russia, Wikileaks, the voters anyone but who is actually responsible Hillary and DNC leadership failed strategy and total disconnect from reality.
@shionoro@POW I will still think wikileaks is a lil controversial right now, ever since Assange was getting his mouth shut instead of delivering on his promises on exposing hillary Clinton on the promised day, made me very skeptical, something was up there at the very least and I'm keeping it at that.
However the Haiti rape by the clintons and the DNC incompetence being reasons behind trump's victory are legit leaks, in fact the leakers seem to be more better news sources, than MSM and Alternative Media outlets, since I do find both types of media, doing their own sort of fake or exaggerated overhyped news from time to time, it´s best to take both sides with a grain of salt before more intel on the stuff they say is revealed, especially consideering that at this point, MS leftist Media wants to make Trump look bad by a sabotage scenario (Some media outlets labelled "fake news" even have the balls to call trump disonest, even though they were being pretty biased during the election, they are now being bashed by him as punishment (some instances, with judicial charges) and not because Trump is actually disonest and even if at this point, those media outlets want to score some better news, they are now tainted as fake by the president himself and so they lose their credibility, how was it? "Once you give people a certain impression of yourself, you will have a hard time getting them to change their mind, wasnt it?" Guess this is both the case for trump and some MSM channels, since they dont want to stop bashing him and he doesnt want to stop calling them fake either, (Bravo! We now have a 4 year bash loop on our hands between the two)
It was clear during the Election that Clinton News Network didnt had much stuff to bash trump with, on the same tier as what the conservative media + Wikileaks, and other leakers had to sabotage Clinton, about the russians, I´m taking all of that stuff with a grain of salt as well, case we went from Russians hacking election (which was BS), to Russian had a hand with the leaks (ok, that I can agree with, makes at least some degree of sense), to Russians had private talks with the Trump administration, which seems true, but that doesnt even have much important and needed intel showcased either (like a exact date) and comes at the expense of a Obama last few days in office sabotage on the Trump administration, not good, it sets up a bad exemple, I just hope they dont trigger trump enough to start having him do more low blows and dirty political moves on a Obama level because his recent body language analysis, showcases a colder trump.
I just realized how costly health insurance is, I got hired by a job and was looking at the benefits page, and while its cheap/almost no cost for the employee, a spouse was like 750$ a month, isnt that kind of a lot?! Hopefully Trumps plan can alter the cost of these policies.
@shionoro@POW I will still think wikileaks is a lil controversial right now, ever since Assange was getting his mouth shut instead of delivering on his promises on exposing hillary Clinton on the promised day, made me very skeptical, something was up there at the very least and I'm keeping it at that.
However the Haiti rape by the clintons and the DNC incompetence being reasons behind trump's victory are legit leaks, in fact the leakers seem to be more better news sources, than MSM and Alternative Media outlets, since I do find both types of media, doing their own sort of fake or exaggerated overhyped news from time to time, it´s best to take both sides with a grain of salt before more intel on the stuff they say is revealed, especially consideering that at this point, MS leftist Media wants to make Trump look bad by a sabotage scenario (Some media outlets labelled "fake news" even have the balls to call trump disonest, even though they were being pretty biased during the election, they are now being bashed by him as punishment (some instances, with judicial charges) and not because Trump is actually disonest and even if at this point, those media outlets want to score some better news, they are now tainted as fake by the president himself and so they lose their credibility, how was it? "Once you give people a certain impression of yourself, you will have a hard time getting them to change their mind, wasnt it?" Guess this is both the case for trump and some MSM channels, since they dont want to stop bashing him and he doesnt want to stop calling them fake either, (Bravo! We now have a 4 year bash loop on our hands between the two)
It was clear during the Election that Clinton News Network didnt had much stuff to bash trump with, on the same tier as what the conservative media + Wikileaks, and other leakers had to sabotage Clinton, about the russians, I´m taking all of that stuff with a grain of salt as well, case we went from Russians hacking election (which was BS), to Russian had a hand with the leaks (ok, that I can agree with, makes at least some degree of sense), to Russians had private talks with the Trump administration, which seems true, but that doesnt even have much important and needed intel showcased either (like a exact date) and comes at the expense of a Obama last few days in office sabotage on the Trump administration, not good, it sets up a bad exemple, I just hope they dont trigger trump enough to start having him do more low blows and dirty political moves on a Obama level because his recent body language analysis, showcases a colder trump.
Well, WL has to be controversial by nature considering what they do is basically release information other people quite literally and without exceptions stole. And as far as wikileaks, didn't they ultimately deliver on clinton? The emails were very damning.... Though people didn't seem to care much (or didn't get perhaps) the important stuff in there.
As for stuff to bash trump on.... I would think the media in general actually did a good job covering him. I mean, his business history, his incompetence, the "grab them by the pussy" video... Most of what was in the media about trump was actually true. Factcheckers did a good job in general. People just... didn't care. Or otherwise thought hillary was just as bad. And even now, the issue with the media is not that what they are doing with trump is wrong. The scrutiny trump is being subjected to is perfect, it is literally the media doing it's job as it is supposed to. If there is an issue here it is not that they are doing something wrong but rather that they did not do this with other politicians (say, obama). Of course, I do think that had obama been subjected to this level of scrutiny things wouldn't have been nearly as bad for him as they are for trump simply because trump and obama are not equal.
CNN is partially responsible for creating Trump as a viable political candidate in the first place by giving him carte blanche access to the nightly shows.
I'm not saying Trump was always treated fairly by the media in every case, but to say they invented things because they had nothing to go with is laughable.
The sad part here is that trump, or republicans, don't even have a plan to replace obamacare. Obamacare in their minds, though they are factually correct about it, is "regulation". And in the republican mind all regulation is literally what happens in satan's toilet after taco tuesday. However replacing obamacare would imply taking a set of regulations and replacing it with a different set of regulations. Why in gods name would a republican ever go ahead with something like that? Now, to be fair it is entirely possible that at least the simply stuff trump talked about during the campaign will be done (getting rid of state lines for insurance to increase competition for instance). But in no form or context could the vague stuff trump talked about ever properly replace obamacare. Republicans talk about "repeal and replace" but the way I see it they are either overtly lying about it or their idea of "replace" is to implement a regulation so bland that republicans are able to stomach it.
CNN is partially responsible for creating Trump as a viable political candidate in the first place by giving him carte blanche access to the nightly shows.
I'm not saying Trump was always treated fairly by the media in every case, but to say they invented things because they had nothing to go with is laughable.
Who says they couldnt have just took something, from Trump´s past and morph it into something proper to bash him... Oh wait they did (and around the time of the Bill Clinton, rape acusations too must be a coincidence).
Well, WL has to be controversial by nature considering what they do is basically release information other people quite literally and without exceptions stole. And as far as wikileaks, didn't they ultimately deliver on clinton? The emails were very damning.... Though people didn't seem to care much (or didn't get perhaps) the important stuff in there.
As for stuff to bash trump on.... I would think the media in general actually did a good job covering him. I mean, his business history, his incompetence, the "grab them by the pussy" video... Most of what was in the media about trump was actually true. Factcheckers did a good job in general. People just... didn't care. Or otherwise thought hillary was just as bad. And even now, the issue with the media is not that what they are doing with trump is wrong. The scrutiny trump is being subjected to is perfect, it is literally the media doing it's job as it is supposed to. If there is an issue here it is not that they are doing something wrong but rather that they did not do this with other politicians (say, obama). Of course, I do think that had obama been subjected to this level of scrutiny things wouldn't have been nearly as bad for him as they are for trump simply because trump and obama are not equal.
You are right, most of them didnt, most prefered to go by the mentality of choosing what they considered the lesser of two evils (this tends to happen with elections in my country as well), instead of searching more on Trump and Hillary by themselves and devellop more critical thinking, most voted Trump just because he was better than Hillary Clinton. And whats funnier is that if they didnt like Trump they could´ve just not voted at all, but then the leftists believing in Hillary would go in and vote for her and she would be president so common sense made the majority side with Trump because they didnt want to give Hillary any chances. Overall this could´ve all been avoided if Bernie had passed instead of Hillary, because he wouldnt have been as antagonized as Hillary and thus people wouldnt be rooting more for trump, but apparently according to Snowden, you can sell your country and still get to be running to the presidency, while the ones fighting for it´s values can go to jail.
But are they doing their job, more for the sake of the Money or for giving good true news to the American people? Because them getting the Money can still translate to them doing their job as they are supposed to (depending on their moral code).
Yes, I know it´s not like they are twins, with the same personality and in the same party or anything of the sort.
Who says they couldnt have just took something, from Trump´s past and morph it into something proper to bash him... Oh wait they did (and around the time of the Bill Clinton, rape acusations too must be a coincidence).
I wouldn't mind them repealing the ACA if it means finding an alternative or a replacement for it, but to simply repeal it and leave millions of Americans Worse-off is just a terrible move on their part.
Seriously, Insurance Companies must go.
Exactly my problem. The least they could have done was have a good replacement at hand before repealing it. Republicans have shown they are not for America or its citizens who aren't wealthy.
There are many who feel he should have gone further and just pushed for Universal Healthcare as Democrats had total control over the Executive and Legislative branch at the time. Plus Obama had the public really excited behind him and could have sold it directly to the American people rather than debate bobble heads in D.C. . A lot of people feel he compromised too early & to much.
However I personally never saw Obama as some wild progressive and always saw him as being more pragmatic and as someone who likes to build consensus rather than force things through. He did campaign on wanting to bring the country together so him using the Republican alternative to UH was his olive branch to bring some of the right wing along and not having to have ugly in-fights with his own party which could effect the upcoming mid-terms which was already shaky cause of the bank bailouts.
I have to say it is disturbingly hilarious to see republicans demonize their own Healthcare plan and claim to have an alternative when everyone knows this was their original alternative.
maybe he went for peace and tried to keep the politicians united? I've been told though that the healthcare plan was originally a democrat's? I think a Clinton's? I forgot.
Republicans never made sense since Obama's tenure. They most likely would demonize anything associated with Obama. Apparently their alternative now is "ACA Lite."
Well, to be fair, hillary got character assassinated because she was legitimately flawed. She ran a campaign to maintain the status quo, democrats failed to see how toxic she was, and wikileaks ultimate did release emails that went into a lot of detail regarding how she and bill used their government positions along with their foundations to secure paid speeches which is perfectly reasonable to see as bribes from goldman sachs.... Which I maintain is a shame because morons are still going on about how she uses the foundation as a literal expense account or some other bullshit. The email thing was also pretty bad though not as bad as it was made out to be. Basically, hillary did this to herself. There was legitimate corruption there to be found and her political enemies took advantage of that.
And now, the big issue the US has to deal with is that trump has legitimate issues as well. Russia also hacked RNC emails. his taxes were never shown to the public. His business practices are questionable. The competency of his cabinet is questionable at best and non existent at worst.
So the issue here is not merely that these guys are character assassinated. The issue here is that there is legitimate corruption that is being exposed from this people. And that is being used by their enemies, whether from inside or abroad. Imagine how things would have turned out if hillary clinton had not deleted 30000 emails. Or if she hadn't used a private server. Or if she didn't use her foundation and political positions to secure paid speeches (as the leaked emails say). That could have represented, say, 77000 votes in blue wall states... And trump is in exactly the same shithole. Perhaps even a deeper one.
The US needs to get its head out of it's ass and start selecting people who can't be character assassinated by the freaking truth.
Well, let's agree to disagree on that, i don't think she was objectively flawed. She was a flawed candidate because many people had a worse opinion of her than it was justified imo.
Nothing clinton did was outside of the normal filth a political career accumulates and certainly not even 10% of the dirty things trump is and was involved in, so i can hardly see it as an excuse to vote someone like trump.
I could see it as excuse to favour someone like sanders, or hell, mcCain, some person who at least seems like having a clean sleave, over her, but not a guy like trump.
It is not like Trump's scandals (and russia is hardly the only one) were unknown at election day.
If Clinton had not deleted 30.000 emails that would, in my opinion, not have changed a single thing.
If someone was legitimately upset about that, he would always be more upset about all the things trump did.
The problem is not that clinton lost. Yes she coulda won, or another candidate that would have done even slightly better.
But the problem is that america elected a dangerous clown over a completely capable normal politician.
Small scandals (and honestly, something like getting money for speeches is a thing that lots and lots of politicians do, it is not illegal and in my opinion not even unethical. She can use her foundation for that, it is not a crime, and she only did it when she was not active as politician. But even if, it is a minor thing) cannot legitimate electing bigger scandals.
Let'S assume clinton completely screwed up, was responsible for dead people in benghazi and is a moneygrubber, her trackrecord still proves that she was capable whenever she was in office (something reps and dems agreed upon whenever it is not election year), and was always popular as senator.
For the better or worse, she was more than qualified for that office. People might not like her, and rather want a reformer, but you could exspect her not doing major screw ups (after all, she basically copresidented in the clinton era which was a good run for the US).
If at least 40% of the voters thing that THIS is worse than Trump, then THAT is the problem, not a candidate from the dems who does worse than exspected.
I cannot get behind the logic: "Well, it is not the voter's fault they elected a psychopath without a brain. After all, the candidate of the democrats was not that likeable."
Trump's election has nothing to do with the truth, the biggest reason swing states voted for him was based on outright lies about bringing jobs and prosperity where there will be none, on racism and on outright lies about the opposition.
That clinton actually has two minor scandals was just the cherry on top.
Even if dem's woulda dished out sanders, do you really think trump's number would be much worse than 40%?
The real problem is, as i said, that about 40% of the active voters can settle on a liar who employs tactics we know from the beginning of fascist states and he will even win if the opposition does not have a good run.
First off Wikileaks doesn't choose targets they are organization that gives a platform for whistle-blowers to reveal information on corrupt institutions and individuals. Their founder is not siting comfortably in some penthouse in Manhattan but risking his security and his life even to openly expose such secrets while living in asylum. Pretending like he has some personal stake in Trump winning is just plain silly and only feeds the desperate narrative that corrupt DNC officials exposed by such leaking wish to deflect attention from themselves and build a conspiracy theory around Russia and Trump.
The founder has a show on russia today. Oh what are the odds.
Wikileaks can very well organize the reveal of big leaks, time it and gather material until they know they can hit someone really hard.
If you control a platform, you control what will be on said platform.
So, once again, it is silly to think wikileaks has ties with russia when their founder hosts a show on russia today, they didn't reveal material about russia in ages and actively even in official statements said they wanted clinton to lose?
Really? They are objective and do not try to work as political tool?
Come on man.
Trump at least made overtures to the working class by saying he would renegotiate bad trade deals and bring jobs. He was at least talking to the working class while Hillary spent all her time talking about how bad Trump is and how he said something bad about a woman in beauty pageant 20 years ago.
Fine, you can critisize that, but the election is over, so why refer to clinton and the DNC when trump is actively screwing up the US and it is more and more evident that he in fact has ties to russia that run so deep that is i probable that he is corrupted by them (and so are many of his high ranking staff)?
Bernie spent his time talking about how he was going to make working class peoples lives better, raising minimum wage, making college near tuition free, Universal Healthcare a bold platform! People are hurting and looking for someone who will address and fix the problems and Hillary and the establishment DNC failed to even address the problems !!!!
Election = Over.
Trump= active and out of excuses by now.
There is really not more to say to that.
The DNC has nothing to do with the FACT that trump provably ignored information about flynn's corruption and denied having them.
Well, let's agree to disagree on that, i don't think she was objectively flawed. She was a flawed candidate because many people had a worse opinion of her than it was justified imo.
Nothing clinton did was outside of the normal filth a political career accumulates and certainly not even 10% of the dirty things trump is and was involved in, so i can hardly see it as an excuse to vote someone like trump.
I could see it as excuse to favour someone like sanders, or hell, mcCain, some person who at least seems like having a clean sleave, over her, but not a guy like trump.
It is not like Trump's scandals (and russia is hardly the only one) were unknown at election day.
If Clinton had not deleted 30.000 emails that would, in my opinion, not have changed a single thing.
If someone was legitimately upset about that, he would always be more upset about all the things trump did.
The problem is not that clinton lost. Yes she coulda won, or another candidate that would have done even slightly better.
But the problem is that america elected a dangerous clown over a completely capable normal politician.
Small scandals (and honestly, something like getting money for speeches is a thing that lots and lots of politicians do, it is not illegal and in my opinion not even unethical. She can use her foundation for that, it is not a crime, and she only did it when she was not active as politician. But even if, it is a minor thing) cannot legitimate electing bigger scandals.
Let'S assume clinton completely screwed up, was responsible for dead people in benghazi and is a moneygrubber, her trackrecord still proves that she was capable whenever she was in office (something reps and dems agreed upon whenever it is not election year), and was always popular as senator.
For the better or worse, she was more than qualified for that office. People might not like her, and rather want a reformer, but you could exspect her not doing major screw ups (after all, she basically copresidented in the clinton era which was a good run for the US).
If at least 40% of the voters thing that THIS is worse than Trump, then THAT is the problem, not a candidate from the dems who does worse than exspected.
I cannot get behind the logic: "Well, it is not the voter's fault they elected a psychopath without a brain. After all, the candidate of the democrats was not that likeable."
Trump's election has nothing to do with the truth, the biggest reason swing states voted for him was based on outright lies about bringing jobs and prosperity where there will be none, on racism and on outright lies about the opposition.
That clinton actually has two minor scandals was just the cherry on top.
Even if dem's woulda dished out sanders, do you really think trump's number would be much worse than 40%?
The real problem is, as i said, that about 40% of the active voters can settle on a liar who employs tactics we know from the beginning of fascist states and he will even win if the opposition does not have a good run.
I am in no form suggesting trump was actually preferable to hillary. Though I am not so sure the stuff hillary accumulated was normal. I mean, how many other democrats ultimately had the baggage she had? And I am not even talking about the blatantly fake stuff like bhengazzi or whitewater which the stupid and/or ignorant went on about. The email thing, while not remotely as terrible as her opponents made it out to be, was still pretty damn bad. And she did delete the emails, which transparency wise looks, reasonably at that, downright horrible. And even then you have the actual proof regarding how she uses her foundation and position to profit by giving speeches. I don't see how she isn't a bad candidate here. Granted, she could have deleted 30 billion emails, own 47 foundations and received 600 billion from goldman sachs and still be immensely better than the orange ignorant troll who is making policy literally based on what the jackasses at fox news say and who literally repeats putin propaganda. Anything looks good compared to that. Heck, I am even considering revising my opinion that ted cruz would have been worst than trump. But that does not mean hillary wasn't legitimately flawed. Without a speck of a doubt she was a very flawed candidate. She only seems good next to the insanity which republicans stand for nowadays (just making climate change anything short of the biggest issue of them all by far should be disqualifying and those idiots claim it's not even real).
I would never suggest trump was a superior alternative to hillary. I wouldn't even suggest a hypothetical republican who had 40 years of consistency in upholding republican beliefs and values is better than the imaginary hillary with the deleted 30 billion emails, 47 foundations and 600 billion from goldman sachs, let alone the actual one. Heck, hillary is by all accounts incredibly intelligent and by any logic a more than competent politician, she could have conceivably done a good job as president. She certainly wouldn't be making up massacres nor would ever enable russia's foreign policy. But that is completely different from her not being horribly flawed. She was flawed. I mean, someone who has taken 120 million dollars in paid speeches from banks and wall street and who knows who else and has another 100 mill coming within the next few years is by default a flawed candidate. One of the main issues with US politicians is that they receive astounding amounts of money from private interests to begin with. And here you have hillary receiving literal millions from wall street...
Comparing trump and hillary is like comparing shit (trump) and meat that is rotten but doesn't quite look like it but you can tell if you smell it close enough. Surely the rotten meat is a superior alternative. You might even find a few crazy people who think the shit is actually the superior alternative. But in the end it is merely the lesser of two evils.
I am in no form suggesting trump was actually preferable to hillary. Though I am not so sure the stuff hillary accumulated was normal. I mean, how many other democrats ultimately had the baggage she had? And I am not even talking about the blatantly fake stuff like bhengazzi or whitewater which the stupid and/or ignorant went on about. The email thing, while not remotely as terrible as her opponents made it out to be, was still pretty damn bad. And she did delete the emails, which transparency wise looks, reasonably at that, downright horrible. And even then you have the actual proof regarding how she uses her foundation and position to profit by giving speeches. I don't see how she isn't a bad candidate here. Granted, she could have deleted 30 billion emails, own 47 foundations and received 600 billion from goldman sachs and still be immensely better than the orange ignorant troll who is making policy literally based on what the jackasses at fox news say and who literally repeats putin propaganda. Anything looks good compared to that. Heck, I am even considering revising my opinion that ted cruz would have been worst than trump. But that does not mean hillary wasn't legitimately flawed. Without a speck of a doubt she was a very flawed candidate. She only seems good next to the insanity which republicans stand for nowadays (just making climate change anything short of the biggest issue of them all by far should be disqualifying and those idiots claim it's not even real).
I would never suggest trump was a superior alternative to hillary. I wouldn't even suggest a hypothetical republican who had 40 years of consistency in upholding republican beliefs and values is better than the imaginary hillary with the deleted 30 billion emails, 47 foundations and 600 billion from goldman sachs, let alone the actual one. Heck, hillary is by all accounts incredibly intelligent and by any logic a more than competent politician, she could have conceivably done a good job as president. She certainly wouldn't be making up massacres nor would ever enable russia's foreign policy. But that is completely different from her not being horribly flawed. She was flawed. I mean, someone who has taken 120 million dollars in paid speeches from banks and wall street and who knows who else and has another 100 mill coming within the next few years is by default a flawed candidate. One of the main issues with US politicians is that they receive astounding amounts of money from private interests to begin with. And here you have hillary receiving literal millions from wall street...
Comparing trump and hillary is like comparing shit (trump) and meat that is rotten but doesn't quite look like it but you can tell if you smell it close enough. Surely the rotten meat is a superior alternative. You might even find a few crazy people who think the shit is actually the superior alternative. But in the end it is merely the lesser of two evils.
I still do not get why the speeches are a problem.
The money she got due to those were peanuts compared to her overall wealth and also to the money she received in total for her campaign, and she held speeches to many opposing interest groups, with goldman sachs just being one of the many (most money she got for speeches was not from banks at all).
I don't see this as a flaw because nothing points to anything goldman sachs could conceivably have in their hand to influence clinton.
Goldman Sachs supported obama over clinton back then, and in this election they were not an exspecially huge donor.
Why would clinton feel any obligation to them just because she held a speech and got paid for it (after all, clinton's insight on political players IS valuable for banks).
Clinton should have been more open about it to begin with.
Instead of using euphemism and usual political talk like 'i got paid for services outside of my political duty as a private person' or something like that, she coulda just said 'ya i got money from them because i am actually competent and they wanted my advice'.
I think people coulda swallowed that a lot better if she just went full frontal.
But in any case, clinton lost and i don't get why people still bring her up.
Whatever happened with the DNC and clintonis over.
By now people have to face the truth: They elected a candidate which is horribly incompetent, probably corrupt and russia's pet and flirting with fascists.
And that was a bad idea, no matter how much they disliked clinton.
It's not like there weren't other republican or democrat candidates who coulda won.
The orange loser won over somewhat sane republicans, too.
), to Russians had private talks with the Trump administration, which seems true, but that doesnt even have much important and needed intel showcased either (like a exact date) and comes at the expense of a Obama last few days in office sabotage on the Trump administration, not good, it sets up a bad exemple, I just hope they dont trigger trump enough to start having him do more low blows and dirty political moves on a Obama level because his recent body language analysis, showcases a colder trump.
