Quote Originally Posted by D-Train View Post
My point was that there's a HUGE difference between her taking money from foreign governments for her foundation, than it is for the POTUS to accept money from foreign governments, so calling it hypocritical doesn't make sense. One (Hilary's) is legal and ethical since it doesn't help or hinder the USA one way or the other, the other (Trumps) is HUGELY important because taking money from foreign governments while he is the President potentially affects our entire country. It's scary that you don't think there's a difference!
You speak as though the Clintons didn't have clout or a large political network. As long as she was SoS or running for president, she had capability of using that power to push agendas. Bill and Hillary's speaking fees skyrocketed after she was made SoS and while running for POTUS. It's called Pay to Play.

Why do you think the donations to the CGI dried up? Why do you think she is contemplating a run for NYC mayor? Not as much power, but it is still an influential position.

I'm really disappointed in you. I thought you were a little more independent thinking from your previous posts on this forum, but your myopic viewpoints toward Democratic corruption is disheartening.

I'm giving The Donald a chance. Some of the shit he's said sucks, but actions are louder than words. He has defied all 'expert' opinions with win after win, so I'm ignoring the din for now and will re-evaluate his performance in a year.