Page 1 of 1
1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:17 pm
by johnforbes
Hilly spent 1.2 billion to lose.
She also had CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, USA Today, Wash Post, NY Times, etc. on her side free.
Trump spent 1/2 that.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 4:43 pm
by RealJustme
Hilly spent 1.2 billion to lose.
Actually is was other people's money she spent, she didn't use a dime of her own, Clintons spend other people's money, "never" their own. Please give to the Clinton Foundation.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:10 pm
by Clownkicker
Rich American conservatives....the only thing that ever interests them is how much something costs. :lol:
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:51 pm
by sillydaddy
Clown looking for the proverbial "free lunch".. :lol: :lol:
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:18 pm
by Clownkicker
silly, if you're going to refer to me, why not say something that actually has SOMETHING to do with my actual positions on things?
The last time I had a "free lunch" was in 4th grade where I had to hand out milk and wipe tables for it.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:20 pm
by johnforbes
We sometimes got free apricots under some Dept of Ag program in my public elem school.
Those were the days, my friend.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:47 pm
by Clownkicker
johnny, you don't know what living is until you spend a few years on powdered eggs, powdered milk, and government cheese and lard in the brown paper wrappers.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:45 pm
by RealJustme
johnny, you don't know what living is until you spend a few years on powdered eggs, powdered milk, and government cheese and lard in the brown paper wrappers.
As a kid our chickens provided us with eggs and our three cows provided us with milk, of course that took effort and pride, otherwise we too could have qualified to have someone else feed us. Only a libtard would complain about the quality of the hand outs they received, get up off your knees clown or stop your whining.

Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 8:50 pm
by Clownkicker
And the fact that no one here was complaining about it just proves there are no libtards here, doesn't it? 8-)
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:25 pm
by RealJustme
And the fact that no one here was complaining about it just proves there are no libtards here, doesn't it?
The negative way you described the free food tax payers provided to you said it all. Libtards always do that, including the sucky free housing and sucky free medical care

Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:26 pm
by Clownkicker
Where did I describe anything in a negative way?
Rightards are always attributing their own behaviors and attitudes to others. Classic projection.
"As a kid our chickens provided us with eggs and our three cows provided us with milk,..."-RealTool
Another rich kid whining about how tough it was surviving with only three cows and enough land to graze them on.
You and johnforbes.... :lol:
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:32 am
by snakeoil
Back to the thread...That 1.2 billion was a huge waste for Madam Hillary. I doubt very much that she will get the obscene speaking fees that she was getting. I suspect that her influence in US policy and in the Democratic policy has waned significantly. You'd probably need a magnifying glass to find her influence.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:37 am
by RealJustme
Yep, those wanting to pay the Clintons 100's of thousands to "talk" to them has dried up as have donors to the Clinton Foundation. Wonder why?
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:10 am
by johnforbes
I was so poor a churchmouse hit me up for a loan.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:29 am
by Grog
What Forbes fails to account for in his accounting is the dollar value of the assistance provided by Putin and the FSB to secure Donnie's "victory."
That value can only be described as "priceless."
The question now is: Following Donnie's recent victory lap example, will Vlad visit the U.S. on his own victory lap to survey his newest acquisition?
As Drudge might say on his front page: Developing...
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:38 pm
by sillydaddy
A hell of a thing ...eh Grog ! :lol: :lol:
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 4:41 pm
by Grog
I can see you've once again effectively rendered yourself speechless by taking the Forbes route of self-C&Ping.
Well played. :lol:
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:07 pm
by RealJustme
If Russia was involved my hats off to them, they save America and help avoid WWIII.

Move on!
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:12 pm
by Grog
There you go, Carlos. You praise Russia for taking control of the U.S.
Old school conservatives like Ronald Reagan would be aghast at you people ceding control to the FSB/KGB. But for you it's a great thing.
Perhaps, because you're Hispanic, you're thinking Putin might put you in charge of Cuba?
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:29 pm
by johnforbes
There's no disputin' the Putin scrutiny.
At this point, the comedic value is high because Democrats were so utterly humiliated that they are taking refuge in insane notions that foreign governments were to blame for Hillary's loss.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:33 pm
by Grog
See? Even Forbes validates and approves of Putin's exertion of influence over America.
Re: 1.2 billion
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:48 pm
by johnforbes
The entire Democrat attempt to blame Putin is rich.
Were it true, it would reveal total incompetence for 8 years on the part of Barry's security folks, would it not?
And how come Dems now feign to be upset when they sought to minimize Hillary's private server?