because they were also richer than god. NT

'So you think it's better for a President to inherit money, like FDR and JFK, than to charge banks as much as you can for your hard work, like HRC'?

Anything that rightly points out the hateful envy behind their sentiments when it comes to the Clinton's income or net worth. Because that's all it is. It's a criticism leveled by people who have worked for NOTHING against two life-long public servants.

Or just Ignore them like they deserve.

.... Maybe I could elaborate just a bit. "Why do you hate successful people? Don't we want them to work for the good of everyone?"

I'm going to go try that out in GDP.

You can ignore them.

You can firmly and methodically engage them.

You can be codependent and let them abuse you.

I don't think there is any difference between ignoring them or engaging them. You can stick to facts or match their abuse. It doesn't matter because the result will be the same: you will be summarily dismissed and written off.

Whatever you do don't be codependent. That will do no one any good, least of all you.

... co-dependent all my life, but have never been sure of the meaning. Not even back in the day when everyone was writing books about it.

Anyway. I want to keep a Hillary presence in GDP. I don't want to cede it to the viciousness that pervades. So I think I'm OK.

Generally in my mind at least it is about enabling someone else's dysfunction. It is about getting sucked in to the point where you, yourself, suffer some dysfunction.

You asked for opinions and I gave you mine. It wasn't about you.

You're right codependency is a controversial term. I'm glad you understand it was meant generally.

Co-dependent means you need someone to be dependent on you. Some people are dependent on others; others are co-dependent and need someone to be dependent on them. Co-dependents have low self-worth, so they need to be useful to someone else to feel worthy.

It's a serious problem. See:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201412/codependent-or-simply-dependent-what-s-the-big-difference

Capitalism is the way our society functions, and the aim of it is to better oneself.

... you don't have to be ashamed of capitalism. We're not socialists. You have to right its wrongs and capitalize on its strengths.

or we wouldn't have public roads, public parks, public hospitals, corporate welfare, etc.

Should we put a limit on what people can earn? Should the government limit what you can earn? Should salary limits be legislated? Does that strike you as freedom?

Or the old standby- She worked for eight years representing us all as First Lady - it's a position that required almost all of her time and attention and we didn't pay her a dime. Women's labor should not be free. And yet we still do not compensate our First Lady. I don't mind at all that the pendulum now swings in the other direction for her.

It makes me so sad that a woman as capable as Michelle Obama hasn't been able to earn a salary for the past eight years. It's just so antiquated to my thinking....no wonder she can't wait to get out of politics. Perks notwithstanding it was kind of a raw deal for her -

thing is, you've not had many who took the position of FLOTUS and worked activism with it. If you look historically at our most recent ones, that would be DEM FLOTUS that have that penchant and are unwilling to be socialites only, overwhelmingly.

and she has been a great public servant for her entire adult life. And whatever money she EARNED on the speaking circuit was legally earned.

And the money Bill has raised, in large part, has funded the activities of the Clinton Global Initiative and offshoot organizations.

If the Clintons were about money, they both would have cashed in, and be sitting on a beach somewhere, not doing everything they can to make the lives of others better.