10 thoughts on “Why can’t we buy Hillary Clinton-brand hot sauce?

  1. I don’t know why more prominent politicians don’t start their own lifestyle brands. I think it’s a good idea: a lot of them want to stay in politics a lot longer than they should because of the money and the power. But a lifestyle brand would give them a solid, dependable income, so they wouldn’t have to try to stick around in office or meddle with politics for the rest of their lives.

    I would be in favor of a law stipulating that it’s fine for ex-politicians to capitalize on their fame with branded products, including their official former titles – ** with the requirement that they not involve themselves in public policy debates ever again. **

  2. What about Eliz Warren’s Pocahontas Porter? And for those who prefer a lighter beer, her renowned Pocahontas Pilsner?

  3. Make that sauce “charged” (with THC) and you have an instant winner. Helps tremendously to quell panic acctacks, teeth gnashing, and uncontrollable bawling in post-election liberals.

  4. When Mrs Bill Clinton was Sec State she was in charge of global money laundering and the largest crime syndicate the world has ever known, the $2B in cash to Iran was not Obama, follow here travels and don’t let the corruption at the Clinton Foundation throw you, that’s a distraction.

  5. Off topic, but here’s a “real world divorce” for the ages …

    Couple has no home, kids together but still considered spouses, Ontario’s top court rules. A wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a month in spousal support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship even though they kept separate homes and had no children together, Ontario’s top court has ruled. Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited — lived together in a conjugal relationship — continuously for at least three years. But that doesn’t necessarily mean living in the same home, the court found. “Lack of a shared residence is not determinative of the issue of cohabitation,” …

    • The good news from the story is the dude was originally ordered to pay $53,077 monthly indefinitely, but he appealed, and it was reduced to only $50k x 12months x 10 years = $6M.

Comments are closed.