Bernie Earned Less in Year than Hillary Made in Single Speech

[Peter1469]

Bernie Earned Less in Year than Hillary Made in Single Speech (http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001999)

The democrats never fail to entertain.


Bernie Sanders reportedly earned just over $200,000 in 2014. That same year, Hillary Clinton, Sanders's top Democratic rival, gave about 45 paid speeches, many of which paid her more in a single hour than Sanders made the entire year.

The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/15/sanders-to-release-full-2014-tax-returns-showing-just-more-than-200000-in-income/) reports on Sanders's income. "The senator from Vermont reported income of just more than $200,000 on his 2014 returns, according to the first few pages of his federal and Vermont filings, which were shared with The Washington Post back in June. On Friday, the couple is planning to release the rest of the returns, including attached schedules," writes the paper. "The vast majority of the couple's income came from Sanders's $174,000 Senate salary and Social Security benefits that both he and his wife, Jane, a former college president, receive."

[MisterVeritis]

Bernie Earned Less in Year than Hillary Made in Single Speech (http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001999)

The democrats never fail to entertain.
That is because access to her in her potential future office is worth far more than a year of a Socialist's time. Selling access is big business for a criminal democrat.

[The Xl]

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt thief. Most of those speeches are open bribes.

[Tahuyaman]

Bernie Earned Less in Year than Hillary Made in Single Speech (http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001999)

The democrats never fail to entertain.

well, she was once called "the world's smartest woman".

[Beevee]

well, she was once called "the world's smartest woman".

But unlikely that she referred to herself that way................unlike Donald Trump who.................

[Tahuyaman]

But unlikely that she referred to herself that way................unlike Donald Trump who.................

This isn't about Trump.

[Green Arrow]

Yeah, but Hillary is more representative of the average American :rollseyes:

[The Xl]

I don't really see how any of this isn't criminal bribery. Paying for ones campaign is one thing, and certainly also an indicator of nefarious bribery, but this is another level.

The Clintons are sponges, the majority of their net worth comes from open bribes from special interests.

[Tahuyaman]

Their corruption has gotten them into the top 1%, but the liberals don't have anything to say about that.

[Beevee]

This isn't about Trump.

So report me. It's what Americans enjoy most. It must give them some kind of an orgasm.

[MisterVeritis]

Yeah, but Hillary is more representative of the average American :rollseyes:
...more representative than what?

Half of the nation wants Marxism, Bernie style.

[MisterVeritis]

So report me. It's what Americans enjoy most. It must give them some kind of an orgasm.
I suppose I could report you, if you wish. Of all my orgasms my favorite come right after I report someone.

Oh, was it good for you too?

[JDubya]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of right-wing droolers pissing and whining about Hillary Clinton making money from speaking fees, but never uttering a peep about any conservative doing the exact same thing.

Did Hillary get paid to make speeches while a Senator or as Secretary of State?

No she didn't, because that is against the law. She is a private citizen and legally entitled to sell her time and effort for whatever the free market will bear.

Remember the free market, wing nuts? You're always yapping about it any other time, so why is it suddenly bad and evil?

If it is some horrible, awful thing for Hillary to have made big bucks for giving speeches, then it just as awful for everyone else in politics who has done it.

And besides, before Hillary did it, no right-winger ever had a problem with it.

As for Bernie Sanders, he has been a public office holder for the past thirty years. He hasn't given paid speeches in part, because he is not legally eligible to do so.

[MisterVeritis]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of right-wing droolers pissing and whining about Hillary Clinton making money from speaking fees, but never uttering a peep about any conservative doing the exact same thing.

Did Hillary get paid to make speeches while a Senator or as Secretary of State?

No she didn't, because that is against the law. She is a private citizen and legally entitled to sell her time and effort for whatever the free market will bear.

Remember the free market, wing nuts? You're always yapping about it any other time, so why is it suddenly bad and evil?

If it is some horrible, awful thing for Hillary to have made big bucks for giving speeches, then it just as awful for everyone else in politics who has done it.

And besides, before Hillary did it, no right-winger ever had a problem with it.

As for Bernie Sanders, he has been a public office holder for the past thirty years. He hasn't given paid speeches in part, because he is not legally eligible to do so.
This is amusing. Clinton, a corrupt, criminal, sells promises of access to a future president for top dollar. The usual democratic suspects think that is peachy.

You do not object to crony capitalism (AKA crime) as long as your friends and allies benefit. This means you are incredibly stupid.

[FindersKeepers]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of right-wing droolers pissing and whining about Hillary Clinton making money from speaking fees, but never uttering a peep about any conservative doing the exact same thing.


The funny thing is that it's Leftists -- not conservatives -- that keep whining about politicians having too much money. The Clintons are worth over half a billion and the moronic "Democracy Spring" leftists, funded by billionaire, George Soros, are getting themselves arrested as they protest against big money in politics.

That's why it's funny.

Leftists are stupid -- but good for an occasional laugh. :grin:

[JDubya]

This is amusing. Clinton, a corrupt, criminal, sells promises of access to a future president for top dollar. The usual democratic suspects think that is peachy.

You do not object to crony capitalism (AKA crime) as long as your friends and allies benefit. This means you are incredibly stupid.

You have zero evidence of the idiotic claims you make, so why make them to begin with other than to make yourself look idiotic, which is the only thing I've ever seen you do effectively.

[JDubya]

The funny thing is that it's Leftists -- not conservatives -- that keep whining about politicians having too much money. The Clintons are worth over half a billion and the moronic "Democracy Spring" leftists, funded by billionaire, George Soros, are getting themselves arrested as they protest against big money in politics.

That's why it's funny.

Leftists are stupid -- but good for an occasional laugh. :grin:

The people you're talking about are all voting for Sanders, not Hillary, so - FAIL.

Something you're used to around here, BTW.

[MisterVeritis]

This is amusing. Clinton, a corrupt, criminal, sells promises of access to a future president for top dollar. The usual democratic suspects think that is peachy.

You do not object to crony capitalism (AKA crime) as long as your friends and allies benefit. This means you are incredibly stupid.

You have zero evidence of the idiotic claims you make, so why make them to begin with other than to make yourself look idiotic, which is the only thing I've ever seen you do effectively.
Hmmm. What did you disagree with?
1) Clinton is a criminal.
2) Clinton, wholly corrupt, sold the promise of access to future political office
3) The Democrat drones think that is peachy
4) Crony capitalism, crime, is fine with the drones as long as the right people benefit.
5) Unstated, but you are a drone.

JD? what did you disagree with?

[JDubya]

This is amusing. Clinton, a corrupt, criminal, sells promises of access to a future president for top dollar. The usual democratic suspects think that is peachy.

You do not object to crony capitalism (AKA crime) as long as your friends and allies benefit. This means you are incredibly stupid.

Hmmm. What did you disagree with?
1) Clinton is a criminal.
2) Clinton, wholly corrupt, sold the promise of access to future political office
3) The Democrat drones think that is peachy
4) Crony capitalism, crime, is fine with the drones as long as the right people benefit.
5) Unstated, but you are a drone.

JD? what did you disagree with?

The entire pile of turds came out of the same horse's ass, so you figure it out.

[MisterVeritis]

The entire pile of turds came out of the same horse's ass, so you figure it out.
Speechless? I am not surprised. Is she your criminal?

[Beevee]

I suppose I could report you, if you wish. Of all my orgasms my favorite come right after I report someone.

Oh, was it good for you too?

I would, if I could, but I can't.

[MisterVeritis]

I would, if I could, but I can't.
Are you unable to orgasm? Poor dear!

[JDubya]

Speechless? I am not surprised. Is she your criminal?

Your moronic, strawman questions don't merit a serious answer.

[Peter1469]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of left-wing droolers pissing and whining about Hillary's flaws being pointed out. :wink:



Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of right-wing droolers pissing and whining about Hillary Clinton making money from speaking fees, but never uttering a peep about any conservative doing the exact same thing.

Did Hillary get paid to make speeches while a Senator or as Secretary of State?

No she didn't, because that is against the law. She is a private citizen and legally entitled to sell her time and effort for whatever the free market will bear.

Remember the free market, wing nuts? You're always yapping about it any other time, so why is it suddenly bad and evil?

If it is some horrible, awful thing for Hillary to have made big bucks for giving speeches, then it just as awful for everyone else in politics who has done it.

And besides, before Hillary did it, no right-winger ever had a problem with it.

As for Bernie Sanders, he has been a public office holder for the past thirty years. He hasn't given paid speeches in part, because he is not legally eligible to do so.

[JDubya]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of left-wing droolers pissing and whining about Hillary's flaws being pointed out. :wink:

You misspelled "being exaggerated and lied about".

[Bo-4]

If Hillary was going to pretend to embrace Bernie's income inequality message ..

She should have donated half of every speaking fee to charity.

Truth be told? She doesn't give a rat's ass.

[Peter1469]

You misspelled "being exaggerated and lied about".

I got it correct. It is basically a cut and paste of your post. :wink:

[MisterVeritis]

Your moronic, strawman questions don't merit a serious answer.
Cool. You may have the last word.

[Green Arrow]

Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of right-wing droolers pissing and whining about Hillary Clinton making money from speaking fees, but never uttering a peep about any conservative doing the exact same thing.

Did Hillary get paid to make speeches while a Senator or as Secretary of State?

No she didn't, because that is against the law. She is a private citizen and legally entitled to sell her time and effort for whatever the free market will bear.

Remember the free market, wing nuts? You're always yapping about it any other time, so why is it suddenly bad and evil?

If it is some horrible, awful thing for Hillary to have made big bucks for giving speeches, then it just as awful for everyone else in politics who has done it.

And besides, before Hillary did it, no right-winger ever had a problem with it.

As for Bernie Sanders, he has been a public office holder for the past thirty years. He hasn't given paid speeches in part, because he is not legally eligible to do so.

I'm not right-wing. I think it's a problem for someone involved in politics at the level Hillary Clinton is to give paid speeches on Wall Street. She can alieve that distrust by releasing the transcripts of those speeches. Should be easy to do if she's telling the truth about the content of the speeches, right?