Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

Photo

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.

I replaced the picture. Conservative (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. Crocoite^talk 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Bias, no matter where it comes from, is inevitable. We're all humans, we all have ideas, we can't help but convey at least a little of our ideas through what we do. So we may as well give up, for the most part, on trying to be impartial, because it's not really going to work anyway. As for ignorance, a person needs to be exposed to alot of bias before they can gain a good idea of the "true state of the world." --User:StevenM 11:52 Oct 10 2007

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --Bob Arctor 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying so hard not to make a crude joke about that. MountainDew 22:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism of Hillary Clinton consists entirely of a poll? Kolbe 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Most people it seems are made or broken based on their polls, even if the people polled do not understand the questions they are being polled on. TheComputerWizard

Presidential Campaign 2008

I think what she meant that no mother had been a MAJOR candidate for president. The correction is basically of very minor importance.Alloco1 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RObS entire new addition regarding Hillary's possible "clinical condition" should be removed as gossip at best. The cited reference is a conservative website that references a book written by someone with no medical training, and yet we are to accept her as an authority on Hillary's possible mental illness? This is just a baseless smear. QNA 12:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Baseless smear? Since when do smears need a base? It has been well documented, for instance, what an idiot George W. Bush is, without foundation. For example, Google Bush+idiot brings up 1,590,000 hits. [1] RobS 14:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

It may be true that some people call people names but reputable encyclopedias do not. The Wikipedia entry on George W. Bush does not call him an idiot and does not offer anyones psycho-analysis of his character. I may not like it that the entire article is devoted to creating a negative perception of Hillary Clinton but at least most of it is seems factual. If you want to be taken seriously at all, you should remove paragraph.Wismike

Oh really? What's this? Bush on the Couch and this Addiction, Brain Damage and the President or this Slime Mold Beetle named for Bush [2] All this found its way into the GW mainspace. RobS 17:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The articles that you are citing are not part of the article on George W. Bush in Wikipedia. The "Bush on the Couch" article describes a book by that name and has a section that presents pro and con criticism of that book. The other articles aren't part of Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia has a whole section of books about George Bush and Hillary Clinton and divides them neatly into pro and con categories. Wismike

Go into the histories and you will find them. And you will also find a string of corpses from RfC's and Community banning of editors who protested that garbage for as long it stood. Sure, the trash was taken out after people who protested were banned for protesting it. That is the Wikiopedia way. And frrankly, at this point I don't care. It did it's damage when Bush still had better poll numbers, so obviously kicking the old boy when he's down seems cruel, doesn't it? Timing, is everything. RobS 17:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say it, it's a reputable citation. RobS 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The list of "intriguing" symptoms Buchanan purported to include in her endnotes -- specifically endnote 74, Chapter 1 -- appears to be missing from the book entirely. Buchanan does not reference her study of "narcissistic personality style" elsewhere in the book.

Additionally, Fox and MSNBC failed to identify Buchanan as a senior adviser for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO). Buchanan's biography on the back of the book's dust jacket also fails to note her role as an adviser for Tancredo's campaign. The back cover includes a note of praise from Tancredo.

Human Events and Regnery Publishing are both subsidiaries of Eagle Publishing, a "leading conservative publishing company."

Recommend

Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians - Myk 02:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

A genuine classic

For you serious students of politics, and others who worship at the alter of public opinion polls, this Poll is a classic in the genre of public opinion molding and shaping. You just gotta love the choices given respondents,

• Very corrupt
• Somewhat corrupt
• Not very corrupt
• Not at all corrupt

Can we suppose the key idea here must be "corrupt"? and what influence do you suppose the wording may have had on the findings of the poll? RobS 13:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

For those who dislike this woman

I have a funny picture i would like to share with you all (espically those who dont like her): funny pic --Will N. 12:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Hah. We can all find hilarious photoshoppings on the internet. We should probably also not try and look for the worst pictures of someone for their article - not too bad here, but the Al Gore article - eugh. --Wikinterpreter^talk?

Funny but not an "bad" or "ugly" image. I think it shows humor and a POV but is not disparaging. The question is whether humor fits within our editorial style in cases like this where there's no divergence in POV. (see also "Any POV here?", this "talk" article) goldwatergrrl

Hillary

Senator Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for President in the upcoming election.

Past both biases. You can't just insert opinion pieces into a "factual" article. If you want to be "conservative" in your writing, then get rid of the political/ideological opinion. This is ridiculous for a website that presupposes itself to be more factual than wikipedia.

Her Friend, Dick Morris?

orly? Aziraphale 13:53, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

• Dick was always more Bill's friend that Hillary's...but the truth is, for the first several years, until Morris wised-up, they were indeed calling each other friends. Now I think it safe to say he detests everything about her, while still liking Bill. I am missing the reference. Help! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:03, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

I can't find any ref that he gets along with either of them, or has for years. As far as I can tell, they fell out years ago and Morris now makes a tidy living crapping all over the Clintons. And before anybody says it, I really don't CARE about the Clintons being pooped on, I just was curious if there was any reason to characterize Morris as anything other than a political enemy of Clinton at this point? Aziraphale 15:07, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so we've talked about "her friend" being inaccurate here on the talk page, as is suggested at the top of the article. What's the next step? I don't want to overwhelm the page with suggestions that could get lost in a shuffle... Aziraphale 10:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-shut up and deal...

Corrections for this article

Well, for some reason I can't edit the article myself. However, I am Hillary Clinton. Your article characterizes me as a conspiracy theorist, which is unfair. I did not knowingly accept money from Peter Paul, but I have asked my staff to return the money which he supposedly donated if it is found that he is telling the truth. I do condemn the smear campaign on General Petraeus, which was clearly inappropriate. I am not an irresponsible cut-and-runner. I voted for and supported Barry Goldwater in 1964, though today I consider myself a moderate. I request that Conservapedia correct my article as it is rather offensive to me at the moment. HClinton 20:14, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Would you be willing to answer the question Ann Coulter posed:

"How about having Tim Russert ask Hillary if she believes the New Testament is the perfection of the Old Testament? She claims to be a Christian. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.

Rob, I don't see how an Ann Coulter quote you've dragged up is relevant to HClinton's suggestions. If you're curious, I would suggest posing such questions on her talk page instead. The talk pages for articles at Conservapedia, however, should remain on topic as much as possible. Feebasfactor 10:57, 10 November 2007 (EST)

• I hate to be a "party pooper", but when the real Hillary Clinton brought over danish this morning, she told me she had never registered with Conservapedia. Imagine my shock and dismay upon her telling me that face-to-face! I was absolutely crushed! Accordingly I have removed the parodist user. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 11:33, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Fair enough... I suppose it's all irrelevant then. In any case, TK can always just ask her himself. XD Feebasfactor 13:56, 10 November 2007 (EST)

• Indeed I did! And like the user pretending to be Hillary, the real Hillary objected to being called a "cut-and-runner as well. She wanted to make sure everyone at CP, indeed in the United States, knows that long before she supported the War in Iraq, she opposed it, and vocally, just as she has since deciding she was duped by that evil President George Bush, with his conspiracy to launch World War III.
• And in speaking of conspiracies, she also asked that I let everyone know she isn't as conspiracy theorist at all, and resents those anti-feminists who portray her as such. Aside from the vast Right-Wing conspiracy out to smear her and her husband and the massive conspiracy of George W. Bush and the Haliburton Corporation to publicly fund the Middle East oil grab, she does not generally subscribe to conspiracy theories at all.
• She added she is happy to directly and plainly answer the questions of right-wing cabalist and smear merchant Ann Coulter, if only she would define what the meaning of the words "Christian" and "perfection" mean. She looks forward to an open dialog with Coulter and the American people!

--şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:43, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I don't see where it says she voted for Goldwater. She has always said she was a "Goldwater girl," and raised in a good Republican home. It wasn't until she went off to an Eastern elite college with a commie-dominated faculty and got mixed up with a lowlife scumbag that the prodigal child departed from the values her parents instilled in her as a girl. But there is such a thing as redemption; she can still make up for shame she brought to her parents by marrying that putz and find her Goldwater roots again. Rob Smith 16:14, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Easter elite college? Didn't bush go to Yale? Maestro 16:57, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, but he didn't actually do any "thinking" while he was there. Rkstiner 19:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

I don't think anyone really supports abortion, as it claims Hillary does a few times in this article. Can we maybe change that to "supports the right for women to have abortions"?

I think that sounds fair. Can I also raise a warning flag here - when you compare this page against Huckabee's, then H Clinton hasd a lot of controversies listed, but M Huckabee does not. This seems to be ludicrously unbalanced. Darkmind1970 20:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Attacking victims of sexual assault

Under the sub-section "Defends a pedophile", we should change that to identify the victim Kathy Shelton. Shelton had gone public with being the victim in this case at the time of the 2nd Presidential Debates (which is probably the reason Trump is President today). The name in quotes renders 38,800 hits on Google, so at this point, there's no privacy reason to not include the name. The name Kathy Shelton is, to some extent, self-explanatory in discussions of the 2016 election.

I don't want to make the change without a consensus of sort because this could relate to site policy and I'm a newbie here. goldwatergrrl

Why? Why should CP do the Clinton machine, mainstream media, Democrats, and George Stepanopolous' dirty work, demonizing, harassing, and vilifying an innocent middle-aged woman whose life was ruined as a child by what Democrats stand by as a proud accomplishment?

There are two crimes here (1) what happened to an innocent 12 year old victim; (12) that victims life ruined by the lies and machinations of Hillary in collusion with Democrat party and mainstream media. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:01, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

At this point it seems that Shelton's intent is to stand up to HRC, be named, and basically make HRC own this. I would think that keeping this an issue and not letting it go into obscurity would be a good follow-up with Shelton's making her statements at the time of the 2nd Presidential Debate. More generally, Kathy Shelton has nothing to feel vilified about.

Clinton could probably get away with these legal tactics if brought before a state bar professional responsibility discipline and review board, perhaps even if this happened today, but what kind of human being does that to a 12-year old? goldwatergrrl

Shelton ended up being a drug addict and served time in prison because of the injustice done to her by the Arkansas First Lady in in Bill Clinton's Arkansas. These facts are enough for more character assassination by the Clintons and their toadies like George Stepanopolous, which is their stock in trade. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:21, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

Accusations of Stolen Gifts

I do not see how this section of the article is relevant. It appears that the first family quickly realized its misunderstanding, and corrected it. Adg2011 21:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Any POV here?

ok, im kinda new to conservapedia, but I am just wondering. This article seems to have a lot of right-wing POV without instating the good things that Hilary Clinton did. If possible, can someone please list the good things about Hilary Clinton?

This is not Wikipedia. We don't give affirmative action to liberal nonsense. Relevancy is what matters and not catering to liberal tripe in order to give "balance". Conservative 20:41, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

So are you saying that Clinton's childhood, early years, career, time as wife of the Arkensas governor, and everything else about her is irrelevant as far as Conservapedia is concerned? Or are you saying that to say anything good about HC has to be an example of liberal bias? Daphnea 16:00, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

It's the classic cop out for CP.com We'll list all sorts of negatives for people on the wrong side of the political tracks for our tastes 'till the cows come home. Bu suggest that even one or two posiives be listed, and you're hit with som retarded come back insinuating that unlike wikipedia we do not have a liberal agenda. It's ignorance at work. Get used to it. Jros83 20:36, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

Infobox

I tried using the President infobox for Senators, like at Joe Biden, but I realize it doesn't work, for either, actually as it mentions "president". They're useful, could someone make one for Senators? And use it for Biden's, which right now says "Candidate for Viceth President of the United States", which almost works. McCain's too, I think. Fyezall 21:13, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm the one who added that to McCain, Biden and Clinton and would like that to. It should be in every article for a politician with a lengthy biography. Chippeterson 26 August 2008

"Clean up" edits of entry

I question whether the "clean up" edits of Hillary Clinton tell us more or less about the person. Trivia about upbringing can obscure, while eyewitness accounts of senseless rage can reveal the person behind the image.--Andy Schlafly 20:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

"Open Marriage"

The term "open marriage" is defined as one in which both partners are freely allowed to have romantic relations outside the marriage. The sources provided for the open marriage claim only confirm what is widely known, Bill Clinton was a philanderer, and Hillary most likely tried to ignore the fact. This does not constitute an open marriage. Trying to add this content to the Bill Clinton article is a rather obvious response to Newt Gingrich's ex-wife's allegations against him, which I consider spurious and unworthy of this encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not the place for people to draw conclusions about other people's relationships based on hearsay evidence. RachelW 15:43, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Absolutely agree. This is just an attempted smear on Clinton because CP doesn't like her politic leanings. As CP prides itself on not containing gossip, this is hypocrisy incarnate. RobS you should be ashamed of yourself. --DamianJohn 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

The "open marriage" term appears in the 1992 American Spectator article, pay the subscription fee if you can't read it. Barbara Olsen also uses the term. Rob Smith 16:04, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Th Barbara Olsen book is not a reliable source - and I know that you know that. Even if it does say it in the Spectator article, it is still gossip, still a blatant attempt to smear someone because you disagree with their politics. It is pathetic and unbecoming of an encyclopedia that has as one of its commandments "no gossip". --DamianJohn 16:09, 20 January 2012 (EST)

And frankly, who cares? Unless Bill or Hillary comes out and says it to be true, why does anyone care what some writer speculates about the Clintons? Its beneath this encyclopedia to be dragging gossip from the bottom of the barrel like this.RachelW 16:13, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Frankly, she is not worth the fuss. --Jpatt 16:33, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Considering the front page is calling the Gingrich "open marriage" accusation "gossip," the level of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance required to sustain similar material on another page is staggering. ScottDG 16:43, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Bullocks. These sources point out the coiners of this neologism did not necessarily refer to extra-marital affairs. There is no doubt the Clinton's have practiced an open marriage both on the sexual plane and in the sense the original authors intended ("the book is not necessarily about open sexual relationships, but more about trust and allowing one's life partner to be their own individual," and "an open marriage might or might not include “sexual openness"). In the Gingrich case, "open marriage" clearly is intended to be slanderous, but that is not the issue here nor related to the Hillary Clinton bio. Rob Smith 16:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)

So when Newt Gingrich's ex-wife reports that he asked her for an open marriage while having an affair with a staffer, an affair he acknowledges was occurring, that is slanderous gossip. But when a publication takes hearsay evidence and decides to characterize someone's marriage as open, when the clear definition of an open marriage requires that the activities of the spouses be open and consented to by both partners, that is responsible fact checking that belongs in this encyclopedia.

I will say it again: Bill Clinton CHEATED on his wife. Hillary Clinton probably had some idea for a long time, but there is no reason to believe that she gave Bill explicit permission to have affairs with other women. They did not have an open marriage, they had a dishonest monogamous marriage, and your attempt to characterize it as open is not only factually wrong, it also minimizes the gravity of Bill Clinton's behavior, by making it sound like he was not sneaking around,which he was. RachelW 16:49, 22 January 2012 (EST)

We're using the term in the sense the inventors of it intended, and Hillary not staying home to bake cookies but pursuing a career as a high powered attorney involved in cattle futures trading, later Senator and Secretary of State, is part of an "open marriage". As well as Bill having female friends, like Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaderick, or Gennifer Flowers. Rob Smith 17:07, 22 January 2012 (EST)

I agree that Mr. Clinton was indeed "sneaking around", and have never heard anything about the Clinton relationship being "open". I believe, Rob, that you are trying to justify Newt Gingrich's eschewing of family values by pinning the same sort of thing on the Clinton relationship.--James Wilson 17:12, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Not true, according to Inside The White House by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 [3] Rob Smith 17:29, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Lovely....--James Wilson 17:32, 22 January 2012 (EST)

And of course there's ample evidence, "Hillary worked with Susan Thomases and Betsey Wright to contain any more “bimbo eruptions,” . That's hardly "not knowing". Rob Smith 17:43, 22 January 2012 (EST)

The point is, Rob, that an "open marriage" implies both spouses are okay with the cheating. Hillary didn't appear to approve. And why aren't you adding information to the Gingrich article as well about this? --SharonW 17:46, 22 January 2012 (EST)

However, to Mr. Clinton's credit, he didn't have three different spouses. And we should add information on the Gingrich article, since any "conservative" who eschews family values should be criticized as well.--James Wilson 17:55, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Agreed. I'll add some info. --SharonW 17:57, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Why do you guys keep bring up Newt Gingrich? This has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich. This is the Talk/Hilary Clinton page. Hilary Clinton, and her husband Bill, clearly have practiced an "open marriage" in every sense of the term that the original authors of the book of the same title intended, as the Clinton's lives, careers, and relationship, of 40 years, and all sources, attest. Rob Smith 18:04, 22 January 2012 (EST)

RobS, that is not the definition of open marriage that the rest of the world uses. That is certainly not the definition that was used in the interview with Marianne Gingrich. A relationship where the woman is free to choose to have a career and the man is free to have friendships with women is actually referred to as a "normal marriage." If that were the real definition, I am fairly certain that a large percentage of marriages would be characterized as "open."

This is a blatant attempt to smear a Democrat with the same bad publicity that Newt Gingrich has been dealing with on this issue. It is COMPLETELY unnecessary. Let's not fall to the level of a cheap gossip rag and report on the rumored sexual proclivities of public figures, no matter what political leaning.

PS: it is not enough to cite sources for a claim. The sources have to be RELEVANT, and all your sources have done is tell us what we already know and have sources for: Bill cheated, Hillary put up with it semi-secretly, probably for political reasons.

PPS: we keep mentioning Gingrich because the idea of including the "open marriage" claim by his wife was rightly rejected as irrelevant gossip. If it's irrelevant when Gingrich's ex-wife tells a reporter that he wanted an open marriage, it's doubly irrelevant when an editor on Conservapedia simply decides that their marriage constituted an open marriage.

PPPS: True story: my mother met Bill at a charity event once. They spoke briefly and took a picture together. In the picture, he has his hand around her waist, low enough to almost feel her butt and definitely low enough to be inappropriate. My mom didn't even notice until after she saw the picture. Now that's charisma.RachelW 18:13, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Rachel, it's not. The book, Open Marriage appeared roughly the same time of the Clinton's courtship & early marriage. It expressed what might be described as a liberal/progressive view of marriage intended for young liberal/progressives & feminists. It had a revolutionary impact on many young liberal/progressives, among them evidently the Clinton's. That the concept of extra-marital infidelity is something perhaps shameful and repulsive, then and now, may perhaps be viewed as a conservative position -- something this book, the Clinton's in particular, and the myriads of their supporters and apologists repudiated. Now, suddenly, open marriage and infidelity is considered aberrant, at least in the Gingrich case. Perhaps all it means is Gingrich isn't the right-wing conservative monster the Clinton's smeared him as. But that is irrelevant to Hilary's bio. The plain fact is, she & Bill have practiced an open marriage since the day the book first appeared. Rob Smith 18:27, 22 January 2012 (EST)

At this point, Rob, you're just repeating the same ridiculous argument over and over again. The book "Open Marriage" clearly indicates that it's not an open marriage if one person sneaks around and the other one puts up with it grudgingly, so until you can cite a reliable source that says that Hillary gave her explicit blessing to Bill's infidelities, then the only marriage they have is broken, dishonest monogamous marriage, sadly only one of many in this country. Is that what you want, Rob? Do you want a new euphemism to describe such a terrible relationship? I don't understand why you would want to describe what Bill Clinton did as something "open'" especially when NOBODY else in the world has ever described it as such. Keep your personal opinions to yourself, and post content when it has been verified, not just if it makes perfect sense to YOU.RachelW 18:58, 22 January 2012 (EST)

See Last wordism. Rob Smith 19:20, 22 January 2012 (EST)

This whole issue is not relevant - if according to Rob Gingrich's affairs aren't important, then the state of the Clintons marriage is equally unimportant. I move that the section be deleted. --SharonW 19:31, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Let's not confuse the two. Enough evidence and citations have been presented the demonstrate the Clinton's have practiced an open marriage for 40 years. But the lie, for example, that Gingrich served his first wife divorce papers "on her deathbed", is part of the Clinton legacy and what George Steponopolous described as the Clinton's "scorched earth policy". Rob Smith 19:39, 22 January 2012 (EST)

You're being disingenuous, Rob, by bringing up the "deathbed" papers and refusing to acknowledge what I actually added to the Gingrich article. But you keep on whitewashing. --SharonW 19:44, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Mindy0's section

On June 2, 2013 Mindy0 placed this section at the top of the talk page instead of the bottom, where it might have been read, responded to and used to help improve the article.

The following 3 consecutive sentences of the introduction don't seem accurate or balanced.

Sentence 1: "Hillary Clinton resigned from her job as Obama's Secretary of State after her incompetence led to the deaths of four Americans during the Islamic terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.[1]" The sentence doesn't seem accurate for the listed citation, nor accurate for based on the chrononology of a multitude of actual news reports. Based on a simple Google search of Hillary's announcement of her resignation, she made it known that she would resign at the end of President Obaba's first term in early 2011:

 3/16/11: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/16/callin-it-quits-hillary-clinton-to-step-down-as-sec-state-in-2012/
 7/18/11: http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/hillary-clinton-resign-secretary-state-after-next-election-07-18-2011
 1/26/12: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/hillary-clinton-says-she-done-high-wire-american-175721782.html
 1/27/12: http://aragonhitchhikers.blogspot.com/2012/01/hillary-clinton-announces-that-she-will.html 
 1/27/12 http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/hillary_clinton_20_years_on_hi.html   

etc. etc. etc.

Sentence 2: "She is a pro-abortion advocate, supports the death penalty, has yet to embrace same sex marriage publicly but does support civil unions, and supports federal funding for embryotic stem-cell research." Hillary is first and foremost a long-time advocate of women's and girls' rights. In Beijing, at the 1995 UN Conference on Women, Hillary delivered her famous speech that "Women's Rights are Human Rights" which was especially provocative given China's human rights violations at that time. Throughout her career she has continued this advocacy. Also see "Hillary Clinton: Women's Rights Are 'The Unfinished Business Of The 21st Century'" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/hillary-clinton-womens-rights_n_3020981.html It seems odd to only focus on controversial issues which polarize Americans.

Sentence 3: "Hillary Clinton has practiced an "open marriage" in the nearly four decade relationship with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.[2][3]" This seems absurd. It is not accurate for Hillary nor relevant to a person's legacy! Hillary has not been known to have wandered or had multiple partners. Also see RachelW's longer commentary below. [above] — unsigned comment by Mindy0

Secretary of State

This section was the last post of a particular editor, and the claims presented about the State Department are not supported by the referenced sources:

While Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton’s department covered up sexual assaults and pedophilia by her employees. Hillary has a long history of supporting individuals accused of deviant sexual behavior, including her husband, Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has a long history of accusations of unwanted sexual advances, sexual harassment, and even rape by a woman whose integrity and credibility is widely regarded as above reproach.. The victim has spoken publicly about Hillary's penchant for sympathy with the perpetrators of sexual misconduct.

Barking mad!

She barked liked dog at a campaign event in Nevada: "And every time they say these things like, ‘oh, the Great Recession was caused by too much regulation,’ Arf! Arf! Arf! Arf!”[4] PeterKa (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2016 (EST)

Overhaul

Time for an overhaul. I'm gonna begin rotating out some of the older stuff into spinoffs to make room for this next sad chapter of U.S. history. RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 10:09, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

Not really sure why that is necessary? At least, not to the degree that you've removed content into these spinoffs. The page is now quite literally useless. Progressingamerica (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, and besides, I'm not even sure what the next sad chapter is referring to that directly relates to Clinton you alluded to, as there doesn't seem to be any major additions to the article. Certainly nothing that would necessitate rotating the older stuff into spinoff article extensions to leave room for it. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

footnoting

I don't have time to get involved in major articles or to delve into politics, but I will say that all of the versions of the article need better footnoting.

Many people use wikis as a starting point in their research and for these people footnoting is important.

Also, footnoting adds credibility whether people use them or not.

I think footnoting is especially important for key articles. Conservative (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2016 (EDT)

You're referring to formatting, I presume. RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 13:20, 20 May 2016 (EDT)

I am referring to footnoting to support statements in an article. Many people want to be able to verify claims made in a wiki.Conservative (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2016 (EDT)

Hillary and same sex marriage

I know Hillary is a flip-flopper and it is hard to keep up with the various positions that she takes, but her latest stance as far as same-sex marriage is that she is for them if I am not mistaken. See the video: Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight. Currently, the article says she is against them.

So I will update the article. Conservative (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2016 (EDT)

I redid some titles of sections

People want the titles to be matter of fact and informative. In other words, a clear preview of the sections without editorializing. So I redid a few of the titles.

I found that having clear and brief titles of sections is what people are looking for - particularly mobile phone users. Conservative (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Conservative, you have a nasty habit of reverting before discussion. Stop and think momentarily, "how much effort and time out of people's lives did they put into this work", before you throw it in the trash. It is extremely rude. Good luck collaborating with yourself. RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 12:07, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Tweaking a few titles so they are clearer is not a major revision to the article. It's not like I destroyed your work or threw your work in the trash. The article is not less informative after my revision. Conservative (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2016 (EDT

Ok, I guess I'm done for now

Sorry, but since collaborative discussion is limited under the 90/10 rule, and I cannot explain why I feel a responsibility not to endanger the lives, safety, and wellbeing of sources for this article, I guess I'm through for the time being. RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 12:02, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

I think you are being surly about this. I haven't seen the 90/10 rule enforced for those engaging in constructive dialogue about an article. Maybe it has, but I am not aware of it. Conservative (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

The owner of the website does not like "warning templates" and similar things like them. He thinks they cause the reader to immediately dismiss the article. I tend to agree. If an article is very bad, it should be removed from the mainspace until it is ready return.

The italic warning at the beginning of the article was a big turn off in terms of reader's taking the article more seriously. It reads like a sudden and mysterious/unspecified "cloak and dagger" interjection which is not a good way to begin an article. Conservative (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Oh, ok. Why didn't you just say that yesterday at 7:00AM Mountain time? why didn't you raise the question on talk? why did you vandalize my work first w/o discussion? The article would have been fully loaded by now, two days later. I've wasted two days. Now my day job awaits. I was ready to devote two full days to that article. Instead I was disrespected and ridiculed. RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 19:28, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

re: Intro to Hillary article

RobSmith is insisting this editors note be atop the Hillary Rodham Clinton article:

"Editor's Note: Due to harassment and intimidation of individuals with past relations and associations with the Clinton's, certain names are being redacted."

For a reader on the fence concerning the Clintons, it makes the article read like a spy novel from the gitgo and not a serious encyclopedia article. That is because it makes a serious claim without giving a source. It is a needless distraction. This is an invitation for a reader to click off the article quickly.

If you want your wiki to have an impact for the upcoming election and want to get new editors, keeping that editorial note is not a good way to do it. Conservative (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

The article got over 1000 hits the first two days I was working on it; it's got about 150 hits in the past 36 hours since you killed it. RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 19:35, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Using supportable claims and the use of footnotes to support those claims is a reasonable way of writing an encyclopedia article. There is no need for you to be contentious about this issue - especially given the gravity of the claim you are wanting the reader to accept. This is a basic and reasonable principle as far as writing an encyclopedia article and it is covered in the first two Conservapedia commandments. Conservative (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

I welcome the input. Thank you. You are welcome to begin formatting the footnotes. RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 22:36, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Would it be possible at all to begin a discussion on the disclaimer? If there was a problem with it, we could have dealt with it after I applied the sources and content. The immediate problem now is, I will not have two back-to-back 12+ hour days til probably next Saturday, meaning we've basically wasted a full week already, and the convention gets closer and closer all the time, so the window to win over the Sanders voters is closing.

And the issue now is further complicated by the question of, how many more weeks out of my limited life do I have to throw away?

Go ahead, feel free to mock me once again, but you claim to have gotten quick action from this mysterious owner of the website in 1 hour and ten minutes, but get him to answer my extremely important question I placed on his talk page about what age group should I write about some fairly not very family-friendly scandals.

And I asked for a simple commitment not to vandalize my work yesterday, which likewise you hav e ignored.

The balls in your court, my friend. As I see it, you have one of two choices at this moment -- a public apology to me on this wiki, or more disrespect and abuse of volunteer services. RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 22:51, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Do whatever you want with the article

Do whatever you want with the Hillary Clinton article. I am not going to interfere again with any of your political content.

I will let the other Andy/admins/editors who are into politics more work with you on the political articles since they are more interested in politics than I am.

I am going to take a long break from the news and attend to other matters so I won't be doing any wiki content or oversight as far as political topics. Conservative (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

to: RobS, re: my recent revisions to the article

RobS, given present demands on my time, I shouldn't have waded into the Hillary Clinton article and done it in a matter that minimized discussion.

If you want to revert the article to your last version, please do so.

Lastly, I don't see myself getting involved in any of the political oriented articles at Conservapedia in 2016 given my present priorities. Conservative (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

1. I am 60 years old. Given normal life expectancy I have approx. 6570 days remaining (Ps. 90:12), less weekends + holidays = 4500 days. Minus sleep time = 3000 days. I have routinely worked 10, 12 , & 16 hour days my enter adult life, meaning I have approximately 36,000 productive, working hours remaining in this mortal flesh (Is. 48:17). My time is extremely valuable, at least to me (Pr. 14:23). My time is worth $60 per hour. I already have at least 40 hours into the Hillary Rodham Clinton article (cost to me in real dollars, that I could have used productively elsewhere, $2400 before taxes & inflation). I was prepared to devote all day Saturday, more than 12 hours to begin adding more content, using carefully researched materials which cost me quite a bit in valuable time.
2. My time, which is the same as my life, was discarded without discussion.
3. I am not a Democrat. I am not liberal. I am not someone who regards my life frivolously or the lives of others. I try to be respectful of other’s lives, opinions, feelings, and most importantly, time, which is the same as being respectful of their life.
4. None of these substantive issues can be discussed in Conservapedia because of the 90/10 rule, which is what I was de-sysoped and banned for. The 90/10 rule discourages cooperative, collaborative writing and content.
5. Virtually all wikis afford editors and Admins the courtesy of discussion before reverting and/or deletions.
6. I hesitate posting here because, once again, my valuable time will be ignored. I hesitate posting on Andy’s talk page for the same reason. I hesitate emailing you or Andy for the same reason. Historically, the best chance of my efforts being read and acted upon are at the WIGO page on another wiki.
7. Get me my sysop powers back and access to the Main Page and we will then have something to discuss. RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 13:41, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Andy can get your Sysop powers back. I cannot. And to my knowledge, Andy never reads material at the other wiki you alluded to.

If you want your Sysop powers back, I would suggest doing it the same way you originally got your Admin powers. Create content and re-establish a rapport with Andy and other editors. That seems to be the most doable way to do it.

At this time, I made some commitments to several individuals and I have to keep my promises. So for the foreseeable future, I am not going to create any political content at this wiki or alter anyone else's political content. I am also not going to get involved in any wiki politics. Conservative (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

We've been over that many times. If you'd like me to continue this piece, you need to make a commitment to me to be respectful of my time and effort, as I would be to you. I would never undo your serious efforts without consultation first, even if you made it difficult to communicate with you. RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 14:35, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

I see irony in the combination of the most damning point in the article is that HRC is cultivating the Wikipedian vote, then this talk page starts to read like the typical Wikipedian discussion. Can't we all respect each other's work here and try to move forward together? JDano (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

RobS, I indicated in my previous post that due to off wiki commitments I am not getting involved in any political content at this wiki for the foreseeable future and that you can revert the article back to your version. So my involvement in your political content is effectively zero.

Next, I also indicated that I am not getting involved in any wiki politics (disputes between editors, etc. etc.).

I do wish you the best. At the same time, I really don't see us having any future interaction as don't see myself editing of your content or getting involved in the matter of you becoming an Admin again. I do think you can be an Admin again if you want to. I don't think it would be hard to do. As far as us probably not having any future interaction, I am not saying this because I have an ill-will towards you, it is just a matter of keeping my off wiki commitments to people. Conservative (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

I see. You can get my sysop rights taken away, but no influence in getting them back. You remind me of my ex-wife, you can only destroy a relationship and business, but can't build anything. Who's gonna do the Main Page over the conventions? or are the 500 million visitors still going to be reading about Ted Cruz? RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 17:13, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Why don't you contact User:Jpatt and work out an arrangement where he posts main page news stories that you find for him?

I do think it is possible that you could reestablish a working relationship with User: Karajou. Not sure how fast this would happen, but I think it is doable. Maybe he could post stories that you find to the main page.

I have done some things to facilitate you becoming an Admin again such as contacting Andy and one of the Admins, but the rest is up to you at this point. Conservative (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Nothing is up to me. I'm not putting another minute into this work with the constant threat of having it obliterated without discussion. I'm working at Wikipedia now, I have enough well researched material at my fingertips which will survive on the No. 6 website on the planet. In fact, 93% of all my 12,000 edits over 10 years is intact at Wikipedia without begging for permission or having it arbitrarily removed.RobS ^{Pat Nixon for President} 18:55, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

I restored the version that Progressingamerica likes

After seeing RobS: egotistically rant about how his time is worth $60 per hour; provide calculations on how much time he estimates he has left in his life; whine about a nonexistent threat; bitterly complain about his ex-wife and other matters; provide some made up statistic on how much of his content is retained at Wikipedia and then issue a parthian shot, I said enough is enough.

I restored the version that Progressingamerica likes. If anyone want to improve the article, by all means do so.

If RobS returns, that is fine by me. If he doesn't that is fine too. RobS has turned into a cranky individual who is spoiling for a fight. I am glad I terminated my discussion with him. Life is too short to deal with self-important, brooding drama queens. Conservative (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Educate yourself before you talk. RobS aka Nobs01^{shut up} 23:23, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

RobS, I didn't see at the link you offered any statistic that 93% of your content is unchanged at Wikipedia. Maybe you create content on topics which don't have a wide audience, but for moderately to high traffic articles, the figure of 93% sounds high. Frankly, I am skeptical.

Second, you did assist me with one of my articles in the past and you created a lot of content at this wiki. That is why I lobbied to get your Admin rights.

At the same time, I don't regret my recent post to you. Conservative (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

This is a teachable moment for your comprehension skills: 9322 live edits ("live" edits meaning "active" edits, edits which have not been "deleted", "overwritten", or "oversited", etc.) divide by 9973 total edits = 93%. Heck, you deleted probably 93% of your own edits on this wiki just today. I doubt you could survive 200 edits in Wikipedia. I bet I got morethan 93% surviving on this wiki. I bet 93% of my mainspace edits survive at RW, where they hate my guts. I'll match my good, surviving, productive, educational mainspace stats on any wiki with you, Andy or anyone, for that matter. RobS aka Nobs01^{shut up} 01:52, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Coming here to see this was quite amusing on the one hand, but I did not mean to create any rancor or consternation around here. Some of the pages that he created could be quite useful if brought to their full fruition, such as Hillary's time in the Senate or her time as Secretary. It would make for a good encyclopedic article to recount the ways on those two topics in deep specificity, but not in the main HRC page; in the main page there might only be a series of paragraphs summarizing key points. However, when it comes to her early life, her fawning over Saul Alinsky at college, these are core items that describe who she is and are not footnotes to her life to be glossed over or left in a sub-page that will not be often read. In the main page is where these items should be detailed.

Currently, at 66,000 plus bytes, the article just isn't long enough? for a split of content. That would assume a goal of several pages, all having 66,000 plus bytes worth of content give or take. The Barack Hussein Obama (series of) page(s) provides a good enough example of what I have in mind. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2016 (EDT)

Re: Alinsky. I don't believe she's s true Alinsksyite radical. And I base this on a careful study of her life and career. Primarily, her 1993 talk at her old high school recounting how she was assigned to play Lyndon Johnson in a mock debate and "forced" to study views that were not her own then leaving for Wellsley with a differnt kind of attitude and inquiry, and secondly the NYT apologetic that says she rejected campus radicalism of her peers and chose to work within the system. In 1996 she reiterated to NPR her views are rooted in the conservativism she grew up with. Alinsky was easily accessible for interviews in her hometown Chicago, and writing on him aided in convincing her peers she was a leftist radical. The only enduring Alinsky precept she made her own was the doctrine of demonization of enemies. But her views are purely her own, neither "dogmatically Republican or dogmatically Democratic, liberal or conservative". I would characterize them as dogmatically self-serving and corrupt, but I may be a little cynical and biased.RobS^{#NeverHillary} 15:32, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

Progressingamerica, no apologies needed. And I am glad you found my comeuppance of the self-absorbed, Mr. "$60.00 an hour" amusing. I have my doubts that my message to him will cause his attitude to change, but perhaps it will. Conservative (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

So now you are making fun of the Word of God, God's wisdom, and what God teaches? I've no doubt you have no understanding of the time value of money or accrual accounting either. RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 12:12, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

RobS, tell the owner of the website that your time is worth $60 an hour and ask him how much it will cost in content contribution for you to buy your admin status back taking into account the time value of money and any debits/credits you accrue in terms of your activities at this volunteer wiki. :) Good luck to you in this endeavor should you take this course of action (Your going to need it!).

To me you would sound narcissistic/self-absorbed. You probably have a hard time realizing this though. Which is why I have my doubts that you will ever be an admin again. That is why I am going to do no further lobbying on your behalf concerning this matter. Conservative (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Message to RobS

RobS,

If you going to stamp your feet, end your editing at Conservapedia, fire off your parthian shot and go off to editing the leftist Wikipedia that is fine. That is your choice.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

In short, the only way your last version of the Hillary Clinton article is going to be retained is if you continue to be an active editor at this wiki. Otherwise, you have lost your input on how the article is going to be. Its not fair to Progressingamerica and editors who helped create the version that you trimmed back for things to be otherwise. Conservative (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Duh, the current version I, that is me, Rob Smith, and TK created 9 years ago, duh duh duh. Keep the outdated crap and reject volunteer offers to update, duh duh duh.... RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 12:08, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

RobS, if you want to be an active editor and have a significant voice in article content, I have no problem with that. You are certainly welcome to do so.

On the other hand, if you want to be an arrogant ex-editor who proclaims his time is worth $60 an hour, goes into detailed analysis of his remaining time on earth and other irrelevancies, then you lose your influence as far as this wikis content.

I don't care which choice you make at this point. And I am not going to lobby for or against you regaining your admin rights should you wish to continue editing at this wiki.

I will say, however, that my past lobbying for you to become appears to have had a positive effect and the admin User: Karajou is now for you being an admin again whereas before he was against it. I was also moving the owner of the website closer to the position of you regaining your admin rights back. At this point, however, I have zero interest in making any further efforts in you regaining your admin status back. Conservative (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Duh, listen to my words once again: the present article you reverted to GAVE ME A SIGNIFICANT VOICE cause I wrote it 9 years ago. Geez, how dense can you be? RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 12:44, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

RobS, I restored the version to the version that User: ProgressingAmerica favored. I did this because I didn't see you filling in the content of the article to make it more robust again.

You appear to want contention for contentions sake. I got that impression when I tweaked the article's titles and received an outcry from you that was intemperate in tone. You appear to be holding resentment about me getting your admin rights stripped and want to hold onto to that resentment.

And as far as you dragging your ex-wife into this discussion and comparing me to your ex-wife, I will say two things: 1) In a marriage, when the ship goes down, the captain takes responsibility. He doesn't blame everything on the crew! 2) When you have conflict with others, examine what role you are playing to cause and/or increase the conflict. Conservative (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Above postings and time stamp

Above, User:Conservative's subhead and time stamp is at 12:00; my response is posted at 12:02.

Why, why, why, why, why have you, that is, User:Conservative, reverted and removed MY MY MY posting at least 3 times now? < br>

Would it be possible, at all, for you to begin (a) editing in good faith, and (b) treating other users and their comments with dignity and respect?

And remember, User's are taking a huge risk simply posting to a talk page, with a one-in-ten possibility they will be summarily executed for wanting to work together. RobS aka Nobs01^{Enter if you Dare! 90/10 Awaits: Beware!} 13:23, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

I am not going to engage in pointless bickering with you. Conservative (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

"Hillary"

I did not realize that Conservapedia was on a first-name basis with Secretary Clinton. Why does her article insist on the informal address when no other article on an individual person on the site does? GerryV (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2016 (EDT)

Obviously because she is far better known as a presidential wife than as a secretary of state. Would Einstein's wife be "Einstein" too? That would be confusing. I'm not saying that's a good reason, only that there is a reason why people do it. PeterKa (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2016 (EDT)

"Secretary Clinton," or even "Mrs. Clinton" would clear it up. So would, you know, the fact that she is the subject of the article. GerryV (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2016 (EDT)

Fine with me. Change what you like. PeterKa (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2016 (EDT)

Can't. Last time I edited this article a guy named Rob undid me. I don't want to start any conflicts. GerryV (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

How about, American Evita? would that identify her? RobS^{#NeverHillary} 11:27, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

In all seriousness, we should try to offer the respect due, even if we do think someone is a fool. Using her first name is easy, but it would be more appropriate to use either Mrs. Clinton or Hillary Clinton.

P.S. RobSmith, if you're looking for "hash tags," don't forget about #HillaryForPrison :)

A fool? instead of "Mrs. Clinton", how about "Hillary Clinton, who has been accused...", or "Hillary Clinton, who is alleged to have...", or "Hillary Clinton who has been on investigation for....", or "Hillary Clinton whom the Independent Counsel found to have....", or "Hillary Clinton who was found by Congressional investigators to have....", or "Hillary Clinton who the Inspector General found to have..." in every instance or use of her name. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 18:55, 27 May 2016 (EDT)

Where things stand

I could add some fluff to fill in the gaps, or pile on more of the outrageous and shocking stuff, but I think we have a good, well rounded start with room for more over coming weeks and months. I'll probably let it sit and ripen up for a few days with minor tweaks and see what kinda of reaction we're getting. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 17:34, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

Move over, Huma

Hillary has got a new "soulmate": "Meet one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors in California. They hardly ever talk politics" PeterKa (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2016 (EDT)

googling "crooked Hillary"

I tried it, and Google is pretty blatantly protecting her: [5] PeterKa (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (EDT)

Early life

We already got all that garbage on whole spinoff pages that probably need to be vetted. We know the Clinton's have lied about thier past, for example that Bill was a Rhodes Scholar or that Hillary's been a civil rights activist since 1962. All those lies and garbage come from sites like Whitehouse.gov . I don't see the point of filling up space in the early part of the entry with questionable material and more garbage and lies about the Clinton's past that media surrogates are known for. Let's stick to facts that are known and what is of interest. RobS^{#NeverHillary} 15:12, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

FBI deferred to State Department on prosecution

The FBI collected extensive evidence against Hillary for records keeping fraud, but deferred to the State Department on prosecution. "A single conviction also carries a devastating impact for anyone looking to work again in government because the law declares that any violator "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."" See "FBI found extensive evidence Hillary emails violated federal records laws." PeterKa (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

Yes, but I've been thinking of including that in an overall subsection on general lawlessness and an attitude of lawlessness with all the previous findings of investigators.RobS^{#NeverHillary} 14:40, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

In her defense, she is a idiot and clearly not bright enough to understand the classification system: "Hillary Clinton Plays the Dumb Girl During Her FBI Interview (But She’d Still Like to be Your President)" PeterKa (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

Yah but she made the decision on the private email server before she hit her head.RobS^{#NeverHillary}

• It wasn't just BleachBit. The Clinton Team destroyed Blackberries with hammers.[6] Hillary's State Department must have been an interesting place to work. PeterKa (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2016 (EDT)

This is something voters need to take note of: Hillary and staff csn't follow the law or Stste Department regulstions, but they sure do follow Hillary's instructions to a tee.RobS^{#NeverHillary} 01:02, 4 September 2016 (EDT)

comment

'As Secretary of State Clinton was a powerful advocate for American boots on the ground in Syria and Libya.' I do not recall this. It needs to be substantiated. ZackV (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2016 (EDT)

Let's hope it was God who struck her down

Let's hope it was God who struck her down at the memorial. Otherwise, Nakoula won't be her last victim: "Blamed for Benghazi: Filmmaker jailed after attack now lives in poverty, fear." PeterKa (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

What's gotten into Hillary?

Liberace was said to be sick with pneumonia. Then after he died, hey what do you know, he had AIDS. Pneumonia in the elderly is extremely serious. But instead of a hospital or a clinic, she checks into her daughter's apartment. The isn't about getting in some mother-daughter time. Chelsea is the hatchet woman of the Clinton family these days, top banana at the Clinton Family Foundation. For whatever reason, it's really important to avoid contact with anyone they can't control.[7] PeterKa (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2016 (EDT)

"Google results," etc

Hi, just a quick thought, would you want to title the images of web searches as "suggestions" (i.e., "Google suggestions" or "Google search suggestions") since these are not actually search results? Maybe I'm being knit-picky--it probably doesn't matter a lot. --David B ^(TALK) 16:55, 16 September 2016 (EDT)

She got $12m for a gig in Morocco

The latest Wikileaks revelations: The Moroccan government paid $12 million to the Clinton Global Initiative to make sure Hillary attended a conference there in 2015.[8] Like Bernie used to say, that must have been a really good speech. She also told Goldman-Sachs that she wants them to lead the way on financial reform.[9] Wall Street firms paid her up to $225,000 a hour for hot tips like this. PeterKa (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

Put it in. I was reading about that yesterday. I like the "she knows the mess she's in" quote. Also, if you wish to research this, can a timeline or relationship be developed between the Moroccan donation and the Friends of Syria Society, which she was a co-founder (as cited here?),

"she cancelled without notice, her participation in the Friends of Syria forum in Marrakesh (Morocco) on Dec, 6. (2012) Not only was she one of the founders of this forum, but her presence was vitally needed at the time because NATO and Washington were picking up suspicious movements of the Syrian army’s chemical weapons..."

I'm working on the Eric Braverman story right now.RobS^{#NeverHillary} 19:33, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

Here's a theory on context: She helped found the Friends of the Syrian People based in Morocco to collect funds for the "Syrian opposition" in 2012. This money was used to aid rebels at the start of the Syrian uprising. By 2015, when it was obvious to the US national security establishment the effort had failed, and Assad would remain in power, Hillary took this money (for the Clinton Foundation) anyway from the King of Morocco (I think) who wanted to continue the fight, giving them the false assurance she would do everything possible to get the US to continue the fight. "She knows the mess she's in", i.e., she lied to scam Morocco out of $12 million, not to aid the "Syrian opposition", but to pocket it for the Clinton Foundation, knowing full well the only way the US can continue the fight is with a no-fly zone, which of coarse means shooting down Putin's planes and going to war with Russia.

Wanna check it out and follow up in this theory?RobS^{#NeverHillary} 19:58, 25 October 2016 (EDT)

Clean out Intro, etc.

With the eminent prospects of the various Clinton investigations now renewed, I'm going to begin making space in the Intro and spinning out other content to spinoff pages. This beast just won't die. Lock Her Up! RobS^{Trump now is fighting back against the coup plotters} 15:33, 12 May 2017 (EDT)

NBC

NBC did not delete the video, YouTube did. The citation is misleading and discredits both redstate.com and Conservapedia. It should be removed. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:30, 8 November 2018 (EST)

The RedState article doesn't even mention NBC. This user either added the wrong ref or is messing with us. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2018 (EST)

I'm inclined to believe the latter. It wasn't a mistake. It tried to kill two birds with one rock. This tactic is common. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:39, 8 November 2018 (EST)

Popular pages

1. 25 Joseph Biden‏‎ (624,846 views)
2. 26 Hillary Rodham Clinton‏‎ (617,302 views)

What's interesting is, Hillary Clinton has been gaining page views faster than Joe Biden on this server. Hillary is a has been, and Biden is the DNC frontrunner. One possible explanation: This page is one of the single most authoritive sources on everything you wanted to know about Hillary Clinton in one place on the internet. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:16, 2 May 2019 (EDT)

1. 25Joseph Biden‏‎ (629,231 views)
2. 26Hillary Rodham Clinton‏‎ (621,860 views)

After six weeks, this page continues to gain on Joe Biden. Hillary is more popular than Joe Biden. Go figure. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:28, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

1. Joseph Biden‏‎ (645,042 views)
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton‏‎ (638,434 views)

No matter what Biden does, this page still is closing in. It's under 7,000 page views now. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 23:43, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

1. Joseph Biden‏‎ (650,756 views)
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton‏‎ (646,878 views)

Still gaining. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 19:38, 10 November 2019 (EST)

1. Joseph Biden‏‎ (651,718 views)
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton‏‎ (648,491 views)

What does it say when a woman who touched her eyelash, drawing flies, after she emptied her colostomy bag before a debate, consistently keeps gaining on guy who used nepotism to ousted Paul Manafort for the job of conduit from the corrupt Ukrainian regime? RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 13:26, 22 November 2019 (EST)

1. Hillary Rodham Clinton‏‎ (656,749 views)
2. Joseph Biden‏‎ (656,349 views)

Hillary is now officially more popular than Trump's alleged "political rival" who is not even running in Republican party primaries, when neither have been nominated by their respective parties, and voters have yet to cast a single vote. But the fake news media continue with the impeachment allegation that Trump tried to sabotage an alleged "political rival", before Democrat voters decide that issue. RobS^{De Plorabus Unum}

A snapshot

Donald Trump achievements‏‎ (807,557 views)

Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‏‎ (798,481 views)

Homosexuality and Parasites‏‎ (796,840 views)

Democratic Party‏‎ (735,390 views)

Abortion‏‎ (718,975 views)

Global warming‏‎ (692,871 views)

Hillary Rodham Clinton‏‎ (662,044 views)

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies‏‎ (660,853 views)

Joseph Biden‏‎ (659,810 views)

Obamagate timeline‏‎ (651,907 views)

World famous paintings‏‎ (637,143 views)

Conservative‏‎ (634,384 views)

United States Presidential Election, 2008‏‎ (612,665 views)

George W. Bush‏‎ (585,960 views)

Obama's Religion‏‎ (560,468 views)

Bill Clinton‏‎ (521,817 views)

Republican Party‏‎ (492,106 views)

Jesus Christ‏‎ (477,426 views)

Dinosaur‏‎ (473,388 views)

United States of America‏‎ (463,259 views)

Clinton body count‏‎ (462,424 views)

Liberal bias‏‎ (458,596 views)

Donald Trump‏‎ (450,267 views)

Richard Dawkins‏‎ (443,841 views) RobS^{De Plorabus Unum} 09:29, 22 February 2020 (EST)