She's lost two runs for the office, will she try again in 2020? Will she follow the path of so many before her and become a lobbyist for some corporation? Maybe she will just retire. I don't know. What are your thoughts about her future?
Why would she ever become a lobbyist? She doesn't need to work. I imagine she will do what she did before: give speeches, work for various charitable causes, and work for her party. I think her political aspirations are dead. Even if she wanted to run, few would follow. She had her chances. Besides, Trump promised he would imprison her.
I hear the Maldives are nice... http://www.wsfa.com/story/22665099/countries-with-no-extradition-treaty-with-us
I've read rumors that indictment is in her future, but I'm going to wait until something more solid is reported.
Hillary is 69. If she had been elected, she would have been the second oldest President (and Trump will now become the oldest). So no, she's done. She'll be fine making money as a public speaker, but her fees will certainly drop since she is no longer Possible Future President Clinton. And the Clinton Foundation is dead, since without the ability to buy access to Possible Future President Clinton, there is no reason for people to donate to it anymore. So other than giving a few speeches a year for the income, I think she'll just retire. Also, not that you asked, but I don't think she'll divorce Bill. She should and she certainly wants to, but she can't because it would mean she only stayed with him to suckle his power.
Citation please. I almost wrote "you ignorant ****" but I haven't yet totally divested myself of the shackles. must get there... fit in with the Trumpers... Yeah...
So you only donate to charities that advance your politics? Hmm. I am glad most people aren't like you.
You don't know that her speaking fees will drop. There is no reason why they should drop. Bush Jr., a former Republican POTUS, does the speaking circuit too and he is paid about what Clinton is paid...oops. Those damn facts keep creeping up. So is Bush Jr. on the take too? Is George Jr. selling influence? The problem is our entire election system is a pay to play set up. They call it buying access, and both parties are guilty. It's the way the game is played. Democrats have advocated changing that system and removing the dependence on special interest money. Republicans have fought tooth and nail to keep it. So it's more than a little ironic and hypocritical for you and your fellow Republicans to point your fingers at others. You folks are the worst abusers, and you have resisted all efforts to drain the system of special interest money, e.g. Citizens United. In fact you folks have made it worse.
I was pretty clear in my explanation as to why her speaking fees will drop. But maybe the third time's the charm(keep working on that reading comprehension, you'll get it eventually!): The Possible Future President is worth a lot more than The Former Secretary of State. Yes, makes perfect sense; a Possible Future President is worth at least what a Former President is worth because when you pay a Possible Future President, s/he then owes you a favor, whereas a Former President is just a guy with the best possible credential to value what he has to say. Otherwise, there is no reason to pay her the same as someone with much, much better credentials. If you really think a Former Possible Future President should be worth as much as a Former President on the speaking tour, hire Michael Dukakis to do a speech for you because I bet he's a bargain and he's available: https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/booking-request.php?SpName=Michael-Dukakis
LOL...Well here is the thing, she didn't give any speeches after she became a potential future president...oops. You implied she was getting paid to do more than just speak, and as previously pointed out to you, there is no evidence of that. As previously pointed out your premise is deeply flawed. It doesn't matter what you think, you don't give speeches nor do you pay speakers for their services. Speaker fees are dependent upon the speaker. Part of that is their resume; part of that is their ability to speak and entertain. The unfortunate fact for you is there is no evidence that anything Clinton did in this regard was in the least untoward.
In five years, if everybody's alive, my bet is that Clinton's speaking fee will be higher than Trump's or W's - or Powell's, or whoever Trump picks as Secretary of State. That's if she wants it. But she will have a wide choice of offers - she isn't going to be indicted, and she is going to be well connected, and the necessity of navigating the Trump waters is going to put value on those connections and that experience.
C'mon, Joe, you can't weasel your way out of this by pretending to be stupid. Hillary was a Potential Future President continuously from January of 2007 until Wednesday and you - and more importantly, everyone who paid her to speak or donated to the Clinton Foundation in the past 10 years knew it. Caveat: for 4 years of that, she had additional value as sitting Secretary of State. When I was a student at the Naval Academy, I got to meet Colin Powell when he gave a speech there. A handshake and a dozen words is more access than most people get to such people. And I wasn't paying him! I neither said nor implied anything beyond that here - anything else is just - again - your reading things that aren't there. I guess reading comprehension is hard! Hillary Clinton is not a stand-up comedian/entertainer. She gets paid to speak (from here on out) because of her resume - and her ability to speak is part and parcel of that (it is part of what makes for a successful politician and is part of why she was a less successful politican than Obama).
You may have noticed I've been ignoring you since the election; you appeared to have blown a gasket and needed some time to vent your steam and cool down to return your postings to some semblance of reality. This is the first post since then that has been worthy of response (and it's even mostly right too!). Here's a list of Washington insider speaking fees from 2014: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590#1 Trump tops the list by a longshot, but he shouldn't be on it; he was giving seminars, not speeches, so every attendee was paying, not just the organization that hosted him. Otherwise, I would agree that Hillary's speaking fees will be higher than Powell's or W's. Hillary's resume is slightly better than Powell's and she's more recent and relevant than W, at least for the next few years. But the value of an ex-whatever fades over time, so it is unlikely she would be worth more than a normal Trump speech in 5 years assuming he's giving them (and I suspect he will be). Note from the list that Bill's relevance stayed high (higher than W's) because he was expected to be in the White House again -- his value will drop as well....unless Chelsea's political career has started by then.
Nah nobody cares for Hillary, i hope Bernie is still alive in 4 years to run for president Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
She'll probably get old real fast with huge wrinkles and grow a grey beard and get a pot belly. I'm sure we'll see an accurate picture on the cover of the National Enquirer in the months to come.
Who is weaseling? Who has no other alternative other than resorting to ad hominem? Hillary didn't give paid speeches as Secretary of State. Using your expanded and overly generous definition of "potential candidate" many people were "potential candidates". Hell, I was a potential future presidential candidate under your expanded definition. Your definition of "potential candidate" is so overly broad as to be meaningless. Bernie was a "potential candidate", Martin O'Malley was a "potential candidate" too. The bottom line here is you have no evidence of the untoward behavior you have asserted. You have no evidence Hillary did anything untoward. Unlike the Trump Foundation, the Clinton Foundation wasn't used to personally benefit Hillary Clinton. Unlike the the Trump Foundation, the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charity. Trump has used his foundation to illegally pay his legal fines. He has used his charitable foundation to buy personal items like a 6 foot painting of himself. None of that exists with the Clinton Foundation. You ignore incontrovertible evidence of your candidate's moral turpitude and malfeasance while totally believing things, for which there is absolutely no evidence, i.e. conspiracy theories, against the candidate you dislike. Assuming what you wrote to be true, how does that change anything? It doesn't. It doesn't change the fact you have no evidence of any malfeasance or corruption on Hillary Clinton's part. Then why have you repeatedly inferred there was something wrong with Hillary's speaking engagements and her relationship to the Clinton Foundation? You aren't being honest here, nor are you being consistent with the Navy's first core value: honor. And your point is...? Where did I say or even imply Hillary Clinton is a stand-up comedian/entertainer? You have created another illogical argument, a fallacy: a straw man. She gets paid to speak because of her resume, her knowledge, and her speaking abilities. Are there better speakers out, there? Is Obama a better speaker, undoubtedly. But in Obama's case, he isn't on the speaking circuit...oops. Now that may change in a few months, but when Hillary Clinton was on the speaking circuit, she had few serious competitors. Few had the knowledge she had, because she was the most recent Secretary of State and that recent knowledge of world affairs has value.
