Yes, you are right. Thank you.

“where does her astounding net worth come from?” It is not unusual for ex-Presidents to get large amounts of money flung at them for book deals and speechmaking. The Reagans did awfully well for themselves, making more money than their movies ever did.

“here’s someone who can’t even move out of the WH without ripping off stuff belonging to the American people” Personal and public property gets commingled in that house. It was all straightened out, which was which, soon enough.

“Do you think I REALLY believe that her astounding number of scandals were all the product of a “widespread right-wing conspiracy?”” There really haven’t been ANY scandals. There have been a huge amount of accusations which never turn out to have any there there. She invested in a housing development which turned out to lose money, and that was supposed to be a big scandal, but when she tried her hand at futures trading, once she made a big profit (I’ve done that too– and lost it all; it’s a crap shoot) and that was supposed to be a scandal too. She didn’t get along with the people in the travel office and hired people she liked better: so? Yes, all of this obsessive regurgitation of substance-less accusations has indeed been the product of right-wing media outlets trying to gin up these stories out of nothing, and people who’ve gotten tired of working for these conspiracies have described how they operate.

“how come she is the one who keeps getting ensnared while many other worthy targets of such a “conspiracy” don’t have that kind of problem?” She doesn’t have the personality to fend off these attacks as well as most politicians (guilty or innocent) manage to do. She shrinks into her shell, avoids talking, comes out with weasel wording, and looks bad on TV. This is why she has been a favorite target, because sharks scent blood.

“But what do you make of a politician where it’s widely understood to be their defining trait?” Of all the candidates who ran this time around in either party, Clinton is the one who lied the least. That’s widely understood, outside of the right-wing bubble where it is an article of faith that “Clinton lies” even though you have trouble actually naming any lies. Trump, on the other hand, has an absolute disdain for truth, constantly uttering sheer fantasies that he has invented on the spot.

And where does her astounding net worth come from? Working public service jobs? Of course NOT! Dude, here’s someone who can’t even move out of the WH without ripping off stuff belonging to the American people. Now THAT is low! She’s a bit more of a Hubbard-style humanitarian!

I bet she’s even pull strings for scientology if the price was right. Oh, wait, she and hubby already did that!

Do you think I REALLY believe that her astounding number of scandals were all the product of a “widespread right-wing conspiracy?” If that’s so, how come she is the one who keeps getting ensnared while many other worthy targets of such a “conspiracy” don’t have that kind of problem? Most folks have some dirt. Historical depictions of hers by now amount to a separate library section! Hey, just noticing the obvious!

Now I get it: All politicians lie from time to time. But what do you make of a politician where it’s widely understood to be their defining trait? Would you hire even an errand boy with THAT kind of reputation? THIRTY-EIGHT times in a couple of hours of FBI interrogation she “can’t recall?” About recent events? Is she senile or super-dishonest?

Have you taken a look at her disapproval ratings? And that is BEFORE getting into office (if she ever does), when candidates usually start out on a high note! So I am by far not the only one who is on to her!

“a candidate who offeres nothing but decades of lies and graft” She has worked for the benefit of others for decades, and has a trail of people from every stage of her life who are full of gratitude for what she has done and intense loyalty.
http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality
When you are confronted with a candidate who is ACTUALLY full of lies and corruption (Trump can scarcely complete a single sentence with an untruth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_us_56fc375fe4b0daf53aee9175
and has left behind a trail of people from every stage of his life complaining about how he defrauded and robbed them) you show much less concern.

“Well, you keep asking for specifics. When I provide them, you ignore them.” ??? When, exactly, is it that you think you have provided “specifics”? Perhaps you have a very different understanding of what that word means, because I have not ever seen you get specific about anything. If you accuse her of “lies”, what it would mean to provide specifics would be to cite an actual statement by her and point out what was factually wrong about it; if you accuse her of “graft”, to provide specifics you would share where some named person or entity received a special favor (name what was done) in return for (name what was given).

I guess you don’t realize that there is life outside of the “we” brain trust. Sure, all of your friends may feel the same way, and you keep reaffirming each other. Most likely, you even make conformity a prerequisite for being able to belong to that “we.” But let me assure you, there ARE other viewpoints. And there are folks who are NOT willing to get suckered quite as easily by a candidate who offeres nothing but decades of lies and graft.

Well, you keep asking for specifics. When I provide them, you ignore them. This is a pattern not dissimilar to my discussions with various scientology members: They keep moaning they don’t get specifics. When they do, they’re off to something else.

Fact is: Based on specifics, it’s impossible to make a positive case for Hillary any more than one can for Hubbard. Of course, that does not stop people from voting for her any more than it stops from folks entering a cult. Such is life…

But I digress. My original point is: Despite all of the Trump bashing that comes so easily to those who uncritically allow the media to tell them what to think, Hillary has a lot more in common with LRH than not. So it’s no surprise that the Clintons have used their influence on behalf of the cult. I wonder how much $$$ it cost the cult? Ex-presidents may be readily for sale, but that doesn’t make them cheap!

“Who’s that “we all” that agree with that delusional woman? You and all your friends?” Yes, and we outnumber you significantly, as you will find out.

Who’s that “we all” that agree with that delusional woman? You and all your friends?

There are LOTS of folks who do NOT follow her paranoid viewpoint. In fact, she may not even believe in it herself. After all, this was just a canard she created to cover up her and Bill’s latest crime at that particular moment in time (perjury–an old Clinton specialty).

Even in that, pretty amazing how her “character” tracks LRH’s. He loved to present himself as the persecuted one, too.

BTW: Where did that net worth north of $110 million come from? 16 years ago, Billary were broke. Well not really, but that’s what she’s saying. Not that you can believe ANYTHING coming out of her mouth any more than you could with LRH. Now they’re flush. All of that with “public service?” Or more like self-service off the public? That pair could not even leave the WH without stealing from the public!

” a “vast right-wing conspiracy” only she (and some of her more delusional minions) can see” No, we all see it. Former members of the conspiracy have also admitted to having been part of it and having quit it out of shame. This bullshit has been going on for decades.

I know: Like Hubbard, she’s a great humanitarian, just as versatile and competent as him, honest whenever she opens her mouth, untainted by scandal and corruption, has never bullied or intimidated the victims of Bill’s sex crimes nor made off with WH property. If people mysterious get hurt or dead around her, it’s something they pulled in. And somehow, by performing public “service” she’s amassed a fortune of over $110 million since leaving the WH broke–all by steadily doing her little jobs with no corruption, graft and kickbacks. Just like Hubbard, she was even shot at in the field of combat–a regular war hero.

Similarly to Hubbard, she promotes grand conspiracies, such as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” only she (and some of her more delusional minions) can see. SMERSH, anyone? She won’t hesitate to consider those committed to voting for someone other than herself to be a wog-like lesser form of humanity.

At least, she’s moved beyond Hubbard’s beloved telex and prefers home-brew servers. So what if it jeopardizes our country, shows exceedingly poor judgment and requires faking prodigious memory lapses under investigation. At least, she got to cover her tracks and treat official communications as they were her own.

She has us believe our world is not worth living in, unless she gets to run it, be as unaccountable as possible in the process, and enrich herself even more in the process. Like Hubbard, she’s managed to cultivate a cult of bubble-dwellers who believe this would all be a good thing–all evidence notwithstanding.

Given that, I don’t know her like you do (or how some folks know “Ron”). I just have her number!

You are not seeing Hillary for who she is, not even slightly.