future.

and told him his facts and math look foolish.

and report it as fact. With at least a dozen recs.

sans facts, of course (because there are none).

B.S. on the rec claim, IMO.

So now if they are going after people at the top, they ought to really be pissed off at the Koch brothers and the hedge fund crooks. I'm curious to see their explanation.

and he responded, so let's inform him.

He said: 'Please do point out any factual or computational errors.'

Help, please.

He took Hillary Clinton's reported speaking fee and then multiplied it by 2,080 (a 40 hour workweek multiplied by 52 weeks) to get a total of $624 Million. The obvious problem is that Hillary doesn't give 40 speeches per week, 52 weeks per year. But he already knows this. It's spin.

https://www.google.com/#q=how+much+does+hillary+clinton+make+per+speech

$200,000



Hillary Clinton has wasted no time cashing in on the lecture circuit as it was revealed today that she will be charging $200,000 per speech. The massive fee means that she will be making more from a two-hour lecture than she did in a year as Secretary of State.Feb 20, 2013



Hillary Clinton to charge '$200,000 a speech'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281777/Hillary-Clinton-charge-200-000-speech--YEARS-salary-Secretary-State-Bill-charges.html


I'll let him know his computation, even assuming the $300,000, is absurd, given hours/days/ etc.

but they're clearly not interested in facts, as I suggest to him (politely.)

and he just asked where, 'in the article or graphic' did they say she gave 8 speeches a day. Facts and logic clearly aren't his forte! or graphs!

He knows he is pushing bs. And people who want to believe it will just like the birther crap

Legitimate question.

That's what they're best at.

I'm already hearing rumblings down here in Texas on this issue ... wingers and the like are telling me "Scott Walker seems like a normal guy" blah blah blah. This is going to be a point of attack they use. They are going to paint Hilary as elitist and show her income as much higher than the repugs that are running (Romney isn't in it this time and of course no one is talking about the Koch money behind all these "normal guy" candidates). I expect to see a lot more on this.

from his Wisconsin constituents. (And then, how much he's getting from the kochs.)

that he's after their Social Security. Even if they voted for him initially they are wise to him now on that front. (I'm from Wisconsin originally - have been watching Walker and his antics all along). Whether his little act will play to the rest of the country is up for debate.