Hillary Rodham Clinton: 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee

[DAngelus]

39 minutes ago, film noire said:

In a series of trades through the rest of 1978, she accumulated profits of $49,069, offset by losses of $22,548. The White House calculated her net gain at $26,521 in 1978.

In 1979, Mrs. Clinton continued trading in this account with profits of about $109,600, offset by losses of about $36,600. Her net gain for 1979 was $72,996.

1978: profit of $26,521

1979: profit of $72,996

$26,521 + $72,996 +$1000 (initial investment) = $100,517.  I'd say my "$100,000" figure was close enough, wouldn't you? Is $99,517 over two years, a 4975.85% annual ROI really such a "less-dazzling" result?  I mean, she could have put the money in the bank at 5%…instead she does almost a thousand times as well.  And we're supposed to believe it was just luck?

Remember also that margin call that wasn't used against her.  And that her most-successful trades were short sales…against the run of the market. (Albeit these were made in 1979, when the market was actually in a slight decline.)

Cattle Futures charts for the years in question.  It's a nice bull market, no doubt.  Prices rose from $44,000 per contract at the start of 1978 to roughly $60,000 at year's end and were still up at $55,000 by the end of '79.  So a simple "buy-and-hold" strategy would net roughly a 25% profit, 12.5% for each of the 2 years.

Clinton's gains outpaced the market by a factor of roughly 400.  Instead of making 12.5% on her investment, she made nearly 5000%.  Quite a run of "beginner's luck", I'd say.

By the way, when I Google-searched "1978 1979 cattle futures market" the first six results that came up were all about Clinton, even though I hadn't included her in the search terms at all.  I had to scroll down to find the chart I was looking for.  So I guess it's not just I who's been looking into this.  The first three results were from WaPo, the NYT, and Wikipedia…they don't seem like right-wing media bent on "Scaife-ing" HRC, I wouldn't think.  But JMO.

As to whether Tyson actually did cash in that favor or not, just because they didn't get the loans cited doesn't mean they didn't benefit in some other way.  And even if Bill eventually decided not to pay off, that doesn't make the trading any less unethical.

Edited October 24, 2016 by DAngelus

[starri]

3 hours ago, DAngelus said:

1)  Jill Stein, because getting her to 5% would actually do some practical good, help break up the duopoly where we pretend there's any substantive difference between the two parties.

The beautiful thing about our democracy (or, republic, to get pedantic) is that you get to vote for whomever you choose.

Jill Stein has proven to be so criminally inadequate in her plans and rhetoric, not to mention her judgment (a Holocaust denier as a running mate, granting Alex Jones an interview), that even if I was tempted to vote for her, I couldn't bring myself to do it.  And I have voted for Green candidates before.

I'd have a lot more respect for the Greens if they bothered to do anything other than mount vanity campaigns every four years.

Edited October 24, 2016 by starri

[Kromm]

10 hours ago, DAngelus said:

Well, Trump's scandals hardly make Clinton any the better.  Except from a horse-race p.o.v., of course.  But I've despised the Clintons since they knifed the New Deal in the back in '94, so I admit I'm hardly capable of dispassionate handicapping here.

Nor should they. I think blind worship of Hillary Clinton is rare, even in this topic. She's... I won't use the word "crooked", because Trump has pretty much branded that and I don't want to give that orange psycho even a tiny acknowledgment, but she's definitely standard-model political slimy. People shouldn't deny that, but at the same time should understand that she's the better choice because she's a.) not crazy b.) far more bound by public accountability that Trump (who doesn't seem to be at all) c.) a known quantity, with publicly expressed and explained plans, vs. "We will get the best generals on it! (all foreign policy) We will get the best (non-Mexican) judges on it! (the Supreme Court)  We will get the best Breitbart writers on it! (everything else)"  This is before we even take into account him being all gropey or worse.  Putting up with a standard model old-school political sleezebag like Hillary Clinton is the lesser evil. By far, as long as we don't forget that she is that.

Quote

And I refuse to play with the "Drumpf" juvenile nonsense.  Who cares that his ancestors changed the family name centuries ago?  That's about as relevant as Clinton's being distant cousins with Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Alanis Morrisette, Celine Dion and (sigh) Justin Bieber through their various French-Canadian relatives.

I've used it on very rare occasion, but even those few times grew pretty tired of it. It never gets old though comparing him to various orange things though. I mean lets be honest. We're human, and he's not only a perceived enemy of many people here (and in the world), but he's also a real over the top walking talking parody. He probably can't control that hair, but the orange self-tanner is his choice (and so fair game). The belligerent yelling and frequent word salad is his choice. So people make fun of him? Even putting aside patently untrue stuff like the fiction of Hillary Clinton having brain damage, let's not forget she gets made fun of too. For being robotic. For being total shit at spontaneous human interaction and often coming off fake sounding. It's an equal burden on both of them I'd argue. The "Drumpf" is no worse (but also no better) than "Crooked Hillary". I don't like it, but can't judge it too harshly since Trump invented and personally has been using "Crooked Hillary" far longer, whereas "Drumpf" is all Internet (well, also John Oliver).

Quote

The media spin against Trump has been ridiculous, it's true.  But the decay of public policy to the point where Trump's big wrap-up for debate #1 was to talk about his policies and Clinton's was "he fat-shamed a woman 20 years ago…and she's voting for me!" and the media somehow thought that was the "issue" worth covering, that says more about the media than it does about the merits of the candidates, IMO.

Also unfair is insisting, when our own ears tell us otherwise, that Trump is an issues man. Bull. Hillary Clinton went low there near the end, I agree, but it was against a flow of Trump having done the same for 95% of the time in all of the other bits of the debates.

Trump opened the door to making it about "character not issues" in a hundred different ways before, during, and after the debates. And you are SHOCKED the opponent finally went to that? Really? 

Quote

As for Clinton timing the release of the P*ssyTape to smother the WikiLeaks disclosures, it's good politics, but it hardly makes me any more of a fan of hers.

Unlike many folks here I actually agree that the tape didn't magically show up by itself. Was it simply a ploy to smother Wikileaks? Hell no. Assange has been doing the job of discrediting his leaks all by himself quite well enough, acting paranoid, stupid, making clearly biased statements which didn't support any claims of just being "a journalist", and then his Russian pals soon enough making a two way link there clear. 

The truth is that it wasn't some insidious unusual thing, but standard Opposition Research which dug this stuff out about Trump. The timing was more due to needing to use those bombs before the general election (and give people time to see Trump a certain way) than anything about stupid Wikileaks.
 

Quote

 And then there are all those women "suddenly" deciding to "come forward", not one of whom ever thought of filing suit against a billionaire who was especially vulnerable because his company depends on his personal "brand" before this.  They're all motivated by the goodness of their hearts, no doubt.  They never dared to share their secret shame until Clinton and Billy Bush (who just happened to be present when there was a live mic and completely wasn't egging Trump on at all and who reportedly knew about the release for months in advance) and Jeff Bezos (who would have to pay billions of dollars in unpaid taxes on the profits Amazon has stashed overseas, unless he can get a favor from a grateful administration…) gave them the courage to speak out…at the moment when Clinton needed them the most.  What luck!

And now you've gone off the rails into standard victim blaming, IMO. 

This victim blaming also shows hostility to a core truth about victims of sexual harassment: that it's hard to admit it.

It magically puts the burden on them to have outed their grievance regardless of the cost at some unspecified earlier time, secure in an arrogant presumption that if they didn't, it means they're liars or only self-interested.

Women who are harassed sit on it because it's embarrassing and shameful. Because they know at best they often won't be believed, and at worst they will be victm blamed/slut shamed into being made into the villains ("taking down the great man").

That's not to say we don't look at the timing. It's like with Bill Cosby. There's often a nugget, a core for the situation that's driven by someone with an agenda (which again doesn't make it untrue--and suggesting it inherently does is really ugly), and then others come forth for other reasons. They feel freer to come forth because it then comes clear that they're more likely to be believed.  So yes. Likely the same Opp Research people started the ball rolling with digging up the first one or two accusers. Or even just relied on the Billy Bush tape to do so (which I agree they knew about, even if the "egged" stuff is utter bullshit). And it's totally fair, because I believe Trump did ALL of it. Using what he actually did as fuel to keep his (otherwise provably crazy) ass out of office is fair game. As long as nobody was paid to lie or something like that (which I'm pretty sure is the case, even if it's always possible one or two of any large set of accusers might lie on their own to get free press, while the rest are legit).

As for Billy Bush (no victim of course)? 

Bush was no victim, however Trump was clearly the one with all of the power in that situation and Bush the peon/lackey. We all HEARD what was said. "Egging on" is Trump-standard redirection, and using it as an argument is really really cheap and poor as a tactic to persuade anyone of anything. Because we all have ears and heard that Bush's role was really just kissing Donald's ass and snickering at his sexual boasts.

Quote

 Or confirmation that she did in fact destroy the emails. 

You tossed out a lot of accusation against her, and because she is indeed a very standard politician with some real skeletons some may even have some truth.

But this one needs to be examined, because it's total B.S., and I am actually pretty upset how long it's gone on that people keep using it.

While some workers for her campaign tossed a few suggestive phrases in some communication that shitbag Assange leaked and people interpreted as some kind of criminal coverup (vs. what it really was--CYA activity being suggested because they saw a witch hunt), all ANYONE on Earth has to do to see the lie of the "she defied a subpoena and illegally destroyed emails she was supposed to turn over" attacks is read the actual damn subpoena yourself. Because it's public.

For pity's sake, it even pisses me off that Clinton herself isn't doing the logical thing and telling people to look.

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton Subpoena - 2015.03.04.pdf

Page 3 makes it totally clear she was specifically asked ONLY for emails on 4 topics, and not anything else. 

Clinton is likely guilty of a lot of scumbaggery in the background, but the scent of witch hunt is high on this one, because she wasn't even supposed to hand over all of her emails. Can anyone actually suggest that ALL of her emails from that server were on four subjects all centering around Libya and Benghazi? It's a ludicrous idea. The subpoena was very clear. It could have simply asked for all emails on the server but didn't. It deliberately limited the scope of what it was requesting.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Kromm

[ClareWalks]

Clinton is a Standard Politician, sliminess-wise. I figure all politicians have to be somewhat slimy, so that's a wash. What will keep Clinton from screwing us too badly (the way her opponents fear) is that I am positive she will be gunning hard for a second term. If the Repubs don't shape up, she will surely get one, too.

[BoogieBurns]

9 hours ago, 33kaitykaity said:

I refuse to play with the "Drumpf" juvenile nonsense

I get genuinely sick when I type the guy's actual name. This "take" on his last name is the closest I get to his name without breaking out in hives. Sorry, I'm sticking with it. (I meant to quote Deangelus and not KaityKaity)

I'm not sorry #Melaniade

Edited October 24, 2016 by BoogieBurns

[Keepitmoving]

37 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

Clinton is a Standard Politician, sliminess-wise. I figure all politicians have to be somewhat slimy, so that's a wash. What will keep Clinton from screwing us too badly (the way her opponents fear) is that I am positive she will be gunning hard for a second term. If the Repubs don't shape up, she will surely get one, too.

Yep, and she's already started sewing the seeds of if they don't want to work with us to get things done, we'll vote them out. She said it in her stump speech yesterday I think, or when she was in Pennsylvania, trying to get McGinty elected. She was talking about how she'll need the support in the congress to push forth the platform, push forward the education plan that she and Bernie designed. If she gets in, she better use her bully pulpit and keep the voters involved, democrats suck at this. They win the election and then don't keep the voters on the front lines. But the far left are going to be on her ass anyway, so I think that's good. I think she needs to be pushed, because she isn't a risk taker, she's going to be drawn to the middle, that's who she is. But she can be pulled to the left because she's gonna want a second term and a lot of the things that Bernie was pushing for did resonate with some folks on the right. Not the free stuff but the trade, yeah, there is consensus there. If she even pushes forward the letters "T" and "P" for trade she's toast, don't even say those letters, LOL. She's gotta totally give that up and leave Obama out there on his own. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[pivot]

23 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

I'm sick of constantly having to see interviews on MSNBC of Trump supporters, where are the interviews with Hillary supporters Kristen Walker, Cassie Hunt? Andrea freaking Bitchell? They cover her events yet I never see them interviewing her supporters, NEVER. I want them to find supporters who I hear call in on C-Span radio and say they don't care what they say about her,  and they don't care what comes out in her emails, they're voting for her. 

Bitchell? Really? 

I've seen plenty of interviews with Hillary supporters on MSNBC. A lot more like me though who are voting for her and really unhappy about it.

1 hour ago, ClareWalks said:

Clinton is a Standard Politician, sliminess-wise. I figure all politicians have to be somewhat slimy, so that's a wash. What will keep Clinton from screwing us too badly (the way her opponents fear) is that I am positive she will be gunning hard for a second term. If the Repubs don't shape up, she will surely get one, too.

I think she and her husband are much worse than the standard politician. They seem a little too eager to cash-in on their connections and experience. But, we'll see if Hillary can manage to keep her WH cleaner than Bill's was.

[DAngelus]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

Women who are harassed sit on it because it's embarrassing and shameful. Because they know at best they often won't be believed, and at worst they will be victm blamed/slut shamed into being made into the villains ("taking down the great man").

That's not to say we don't look at the timing. It's like with Bill Cosby.

All eleven who have now "come forward" sat on it for all these years, until the last two weeks?  That's something I have a very hard time believing.

It's completely the opposite of the Cosby situation, where the women had been filing police complaints and lawsuits and (in the case of Janice Dickinson) putting their stories in the first drafts of their memoirs for years.  (That one case from the '90s had like 25-30 additional complainants, IIRC.) 

The Cosby situation blew up because Hannibal Burress was filmed during his standup calling Cosby a rapist and backed that up by telling people to Google "Bill Cosby rapist" and you would get more hits than you would for "Hannibal Burress".  And he was absolutely right; the Cosby accusations were out there, they just hadn't reached critical mass with the general population before then.

But here we have 11 women, who were all silent until the Clintons needed them.  Not one thought to sue the billionaire and try to get a settlement.  One of them was even trying to get Trump to promote her business.  The most-credible one, Stoyanoff (linked above) only alleges that Trump tried to kiss her.  Which, yes, gross, but not really up to Cosby (or even "grab them by the p*ssy") standards.

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

"Egging on" is Trump-standard redirection

The tape has three phases:

1) Trump tells the self-deprecating story about how he wanted to get with the woman who was interested in buying furniture ("yeah, I'll buy some furniture for you") and she completely shut him down.  And then, the punchline is, the next time he saw her she had ginormous breast implants so (by implication) she was being hypocritical; she'd acted as if she was too good for Trump, but now she's a big slut.  I mean, implants don't necessarily equal sluttiness (and Trump doesn't use the word) and slut-shaming isn't nice, but the point is that Donny is making fun of himself here, and also inveighing against Furniture Woman's hypocrisy; she wouldn't even give me a chance and then look what she did!  It's not a story to make him look like a stud, by any means.

2) Possibly in an attempt to recoup some macho dignity, Trump then goes to speak about how he can't help himself and sometimes kisses women out of the blue and how his celebrity status helps with that.  (Bush starts to encourage this, in ways he didn't encourage the Furniture Woman story.) He then makes the infamous "you can do anything, grab them by the p*ssy, whatever" remark, but that seems pretty clearly sarcastic exaggeration, given as how he was just talking about how he couldn't even get to first base with Furniture Woman.  

IMO, Trump's biggest mistake was that he didn't make it clear he was exaggerating here, he thought that people's biggest is issue was his use of the word "p*ssy" not the sexual aggression, and so he tried to spin it all off as "locker-room talk".  An "oh, come on, I was exaggerating! I've kissed women, but I don't grab them that way.  And we've all heard that word, grow up" would have worked much better, IMO.

3) Trump and Bush get off the bus, meet Arianne Zucker and Trump is a perfect gentleman.  (He even seems a little bit shy.)  But Cousin Billy, who I'd wager knew about the "accidental" live mic (that tape didn't land in the Bush Family Vault for eleven years on its own…), is now all "how about a kiss for Donny, he just got off the bus?" and seems to want to drag things towards the salacious.  

And then, as mentioned, the tape disappears for 11 years (never once surfacing on some tabloid show:  "Donald Trump caught in Scandal! Shocking tape of Apprentice host!") until it appears via Clinton's favorite media ally (WaPo) on the very day that Clinton needs it the most.  Please.

Quote

Trump invented and has been using "Crooked Hillary" far longer.

I can only speak for my own recollection but Trump didn't start in on "Crooked Hillary" until March or so, after he'd already disposed of "Little Marco" Rubio and, largely, "Lyin' Ted" Cruz.  I even remember it being remarked that Clinton had now gotten a Trumpithet of her own. (Correction: This article in the Guardian shows that Trump didn't start with "Crooked Hillary" until late-May, after the accusations of vote-rigging during the May 19th New York primary.)

Whereas the whole "Make Donald Drumpf Again" sketch was in John Oliver's third episode of the new year, which research tells me aired on February 28th.  So Oliver beat Trump to the Vacuous Name-Calling pole by almost three months, it seems.

Edited October 24, 2016 by DAngelus

[Darian]

Actually, Trump's been accused of sexual assault prior to his run for president, but I'll take that to his thread, with links. Give me a little time...

[proserpina65]

Quote

All eleven who have now "come forward" sat on it for all these years, until the last two weeks?  That's something I have a very hard time believing.

It's completely the opposite of the Cosby situation, where the women had been filing police complaints and lawsuits and (in the case of Janice Dickinson) putting their stories in the first drafts of their memoirs for years.  (That one case from the '90s had like 25-30 additional complainants, IIRC.) 

The Cosby situation blew up because Hannibal Burress was filmed during his standup calling Cosby a rapist and backed that up by telling people to Google "Bill Cosby rapist" and you would get more hits than you would for "Hannibal Burress".  And he was absolutely right; the Cosby accusations were out there, they just hadn't reached critical mass with the general population before then.

But here we have 11 women, who were all silent until the Clintons needed them.  Not one thought to sue the billionaire and try to get a settlement.  One of them was even trying to get Trump to promote her business.  The most-credible one, Stoyanoff (linked above) only alleges that Trump tried to kiss her.  Which, yes, gross, but not really up to Cosby (or even "grab them by the p*ssy") standards.

Most, if not all, of Trump's accusers came forward after he claimed at the second debate that what we heard on the Billy Bush tape was just talk and he would never do something like that.  (The NYT probably had contacted the two women discussed in their article before the debate, given the time needed to prepare and vet the article.)  More than one of his accusers HAD told other people about what happened; that's how the NYT and Washington Post reporters found out about them in the first place.  Trump only has himself to blame for this particular mess - all he had to do was sincerely apologize and move on, and he couldn't manage to do that.

[NewDigs]

21 minutes ago, DAngelus said:

But here we have 11 women, who were all silent until the Clintons needed them.  Not one thought to sue the billionaire and try to get a settlement.  One of them was even trying to get Trump to promote her business.  The most-credible one, Stoyanoff (linked above) only alleges that Trump tried to kiss her.  Which, yes, gross, but not really up to Cosby (or even "grab them by the p*ssy") standards.

And I am willing to bet that there are many many more who have not come forward.

As I'm also willing to bet that a number of female posters right here have had horrifying experiences with grabby men-just-being-men yet chose to not report for a variety of reasons. 

I don't know why this continues to surprise people.

Here's the New Yorker's take.

 

I guess this convo is in Hillary's thread 'cuz it's her fault? 

The issue, to me, speaks more to Trump's misogyny and alleged assaults. 

[Landsnark]

I think the reason these topics are in this thread because, yes, they are Hillary's fault.   She's so evil and corrupt, she controlled the release of the Billy Bush tape, probably faked it, had scads of fake "victims" ready to appear, made Trump say he didn't do anything, made Trump Tweet, and made Trump claim he'll sue.
She controls everything on earth.  Everything you see is a cynical plot.  Anything you don't see is also a cynical plot (to wit: despite the absolute lack of proof that her investments in the 70s were illegal, they MUST be because others repeat others, and when there's smoke there's fire, and coincidence, and so on and so on and so on).  

[BoogieBurns]

9 minutes ago, Landsnark said:

I think the reason these topics are in this thread

Yeah, I think we were getting along too well, so some of the more stressful topics made their way on our Stronger Together thread. Move those allegations over to the I Alone Can Fix It thread, y'all. 

[NewDigs]

16 minutes ago, BoogieBurns said:

Yeah, I think we were getting along too well, so some of the more stressful topics made their way on our Stronger Together thread. Move those allegations over to the I Alone Can Fix It thread, y'all. 

Moved reply to the I Alone Can Fix It thread. lol

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

Bitchell? Really? 

I've seen plenty of interviews with Hillary supporters on MSNBC. A lot more like me though who are voting for her and really unhappy about it.

 

That's my point, compared to what you've seen I've heard the opposite when I listen to news radio, so they are out there and I'm sure as hell one of them.  If the media wanted to find them, they could and I'm going with they wouldn't have to look that far nor too long to do so. 

 And yes to Bitchell, really. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[MulletorHater]

49 minutes ago, Landsnark said:

I think the reason these topics are in this thread because, yes, they are Hillary's fault.   She's so evil and corrupt, she controlled the release of the Billy Bush tape, probably faked it, had scads of fake "victims" ready to appear, made Trump say he didn't do anything, made Trump Tweet, and made Trump claim he'll sue.
She controls everything on earth.  Everything you see is a cynical plot.  Anything you don't see is also a cynical plot (to wit: despite the absolute lack of proof that her investments in the 70s were illegal, they MUST be because others repeat others, and when there's smoke there's fire, and coincidence, and so on and so on and so on).  

Well, according to Drumpf's mail order bride, this is Secretary Clinton's fault.

She indicated during her puff interview that these women coming forward were part of a well-coordinated attack by the Clinton campaign.  This, while totally ignoring how she willingly went along with that trifling stunt her sponsor's, er, husband's campaign orchestrated to humiliate Hillary during the second debate.  

This foolish woman also blamed the Clinton campaign for being behind the releasing of her nude photos from her "modeling" days all over the Internet and on the cover of the New York Post.  Never mind that these photos were actually released during the primaries.  Melania also forgot how furious her husband was when an ad aired by an anti-Trump super PAC in Utah.  Drumpf believed that "Lyin' Ted" Cruz was the culprit behind that ad and went on to attack Heidi Cruz.

But, I smell Hillary's all-powerful mitts all over that one, too.  Somehow or another, she managed to conspire with Cruz' people to humiliate poor Melania.

[ariel]

21 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

 

This foolish woman also blamed the Clinton campaign for being behind the releasing of her nude photos from her "modeling" days all over the Internet and on the cover of the New York Post.  Never mind that these photos were actually released during the primaries.  

Melania is really clueless if she thinks the NY Post is in cahoots with Hillary.

[Keepitmoving]

Yes, it's all evil Hillary's fault that Trump just said something to the effect of "like she's never been grabbed..." in reference to the adult film accuser when he was interviewed. Yeah, that response is all Hillary's fault. I knew it was coming, I was waiting for him to allude that she should't complain or why should anyone believe a woman who makes a living in the adult film industry. 

7 minutes ago, ariel said:

Melania is really clueless if she thinks the NY Post is in cahoots with Hillary.

Weren't those the photos that were released way back during the primary, that then prompted Trump to start in on Cruz's wife's appearance. WTF is she talking about? Hillary was trying to not get her ass whipped by Bernie back then, she had no time for the mail order bride.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[Keepitmoving]

LMAO, the Trump camp wants another debate, hell to the no. He stood at that podium looking shell shocked and I want that image to be cemented in time. He lost all three debates and can't take it. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Keepitmoving

[film noire]

Quote

$26,521 + $72,996 +$1000 (initial investment) = $100,517.  I'd say my "$100,000" figure was close enough, wouldn't you?

No, because the way you presented that information was inaccurate and misleading.  An accurate statement would be: in 1978, HRC took a thousand dollars and turned it into a net gain of 26K. The following year, she reinvested her wins and turned that into a net gain of 72 K.  It took her two years of reinvesting her gains -- being down 50K along the way  -- to recoup her losses and end up netting 99 K. 

Or, as the St Louis Post-Dispatch put it at the time:

"The documents suggested that from her initial investment of $1,000 in October 1978, she made a $5,300 profit on her first trade within a few days. She reinvested the principal and proceeds in several transactions, accumulating trading profits of $49,069 that first year offset by $22,548 in losses. Her net gain for the year was $26,521.

In 1979, still reinvesting her gains, she made trading profits of $109,600 and suffered losses of $36,600. Her net gain for that year was $72,996. The White House indicated that the difference came in the rounding off of figures.”

(The link will not allow me to post, so search questia + St Louis Post-Dispatch +Small Stake Grew Big for Mrs. Clinton.)

No matter how you shake it, it did not (as you said) take HRC 1 year to turn 1 K into 100K. 

Quote

The first three results were from WaPo, the NYT, and Wikipedia…they don't seem like right-wing media bent on "Scaife-ing" HRC, I wouldn't think.  But JMO.

Well, we've established the Wiki article is wrong in several instances.  And (following your search terms) the WaPo article and Times piece are both from the mid nineties (the Times piece is the sloppy one I've already mentioned, which caused them to have to issue a retraction over this falsehood: "During Mr. Clinton's tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards.")  That said, both the WaPo and the NY Times spread enormous amounts of misinformation concerning every single "scandal' laid at the feet of the Clintons. There's info about that all over the net, and easily found.

But yes, we can agree that many people are searching for info about this.  Let's hope they find the truth, not misleading spin.

Edited October 27, 2016 by film noire

[Kromm]

1 hour ago, Landsnark said:

I think the reason these topics are in this thread because, yes, they are Hillary's fault.   She's so evil and corrupt, she controlled the release of the Billy Bush tape, probably faked it, had scads of fake "victims" ready to appear, made Trump say he didn't do anything, made Trump Tweet, and made Trump claim he'll sue.
She controls everything on earth.  Everything you see is a cynical plot.  Anything you don't see is also a cynical plot (to wit: despite the absolute lack of proof that her investments in the 70s were illegal, they MUST be because others repeat others, and when there's smoke there's fire, and coincidence, and so on and so on and so on).  

She's... IllumiNUTTY, isn't she?

But seriously, she's just standard model Washington sleeze. Only in Trump's little orange bronzed hands (he doesn't skip the hands with the self-tanner does he?) is she some mastermind of manipulation.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to put up with Hillary Clinton's ick factor. But it's SO much smaller and understandable in scope than Donald Trump's.

[film noire]

10 hours ago, starri said:

The beautiful thing about our democracy (or, republic, to get pedantic) is that you get to vote for whomever you choose.

Jill Stein has proven to be so criminally inadequate in her plans and rhetoric, not to mention her judgment (a Holocaust denier as a running mate, granting Alex Jones an interview), that even if I was tempted to vote for her, I couldn't bring myself to do it.  And I have voted for Green candidates before.

I'd have a lot more respect for the Greens if they bothered to do anything other than mount vanity campaigns every four years.

Among a laundry list of things, I was really disturbed by her mollycoddling Putin during her visit. Fair enough criticizing American policy while in Russia (not everybody's cup of tea criticizing while abroad, I get that) but to not mention a word about Putin's regime? That's total bullshit. When members of the Russian Green party have to take you to task for how you handled a dictator, you need to take a seat and start reading up on foreign policy.

Edited October 24, 2016 by film noire

[LoneHaranguer]

9 minutes ago, Keepitmoving said:

He lost all three debates and can't take it. 

Clinton lost the first one. She clearly showed up not expecting an actual debate, but only what passes for one most years.

[film noire]

2 hours ago, DAngelus said:

But here we have 11 women, who were all silent until the Clintons needed them.  

That's completely untrue.  Several women told friends,  family or fellow contestants about Trump's sick behavior at the time, and Jill Harth filed a lawsuit in 1997. Here's a list of Trump's victims, and the circumstances surrounding his attacks.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct

Edited October 24, 2016 by film noire

[BoogieBurns]

33 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Clinton lost the first one.

Not a single scientific poll agrees with this statement. 

[Menrva]

10 hours ago, film noire said:

That's completely untrue.  Several women told friends,  family or fellow contestants about Trump's sick behavior at the time, and Jill Harth filed a lawsuit in 1997. Here's a list of Trump's victims, and the circumstances surrounding his attacks.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct

 

10 hours ago, film noire said:

2 hours ago, DAngelus said:

But here we have 11 women, who were all silent until the Clintons needed them.  

And this attitude here is why women don't speak up. The humiliation of having to explain what happened to you and all the people who won't believe you because:

you're just looking for attention

you were drinking - what did you think would happen

the way you were dressed, you were asking for it

You feel such shame for the abuse, that it happened, that you couldn't stop it, that you didn't see the signs. You can't bear the "I told you so"s. You feel rage when your attacker blames you for it, saying you were leading him on.

I know this because this is what I have to live with. And I hate myself for not being stronger and reporting the incident. It happened nearly 25 years ago and I still am ashamed. And so when I see these women coming forward with their stories and Trump calling them liars and his surrogates dismissing them as fame whores, I see red. I want to scream. My heart pounds. I hope they have the strength to not back down and hide. Because everyone is telling you to shut up and stop making such a fuss. You're too sensitive. You're making a big deal out of nothing, because you're nothing and he is everything.

I look at my daughters and pray they'll never have to experience this. So yes, I'm voting for Hillary. Any one of Trump's flaws are enough to disqualify him. She is tough and tenacious and she'll need that to survive all the crap that is going to be thrown at her for the next 4-8 years.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Menrva

[film noire]

21 minutes ago, Menrva said:

I know this because this is what I have to live with. And I hate myself for not being stronger and reporting the incident. It happened nearly 25 years ago and I still am ashamed. And so when I see these women coming forward with their stories and Trump calling them liars and his surrogates dismissing them as fame whores, I see red. I want to scream. My heart pounds. I hope they have the strength to not back down and hide. Because everyone is telling you to shut up and stop making such a fuss. You're too sensitive. You're making a big deal out of nothing, because you're nothing and he is everything.

Thanks for sharing this, Menrva --  our stories make us all stronger -- your daughters are lucky to have a mother like you. 

[Pixel]

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Clinton lost the first one. She clearly showed up not expecting an actual debate, but only what passes for one most years.

If he won the first debate, why is it that immediately after it was when he began his long, downhill slide? 

[FilmTVGeek80]

4 hours ago, Pixel said:

If he won the first debate, why is it that immediately after it was when he began his long, downhill slide? 

Thank you! Only on Planet Trump did that rambling, sniffing, poo flinging ragemonkey win the first debate!

 

19 hours ago, DAngelus said:

He's (sort of) black/she's a woman, doesn't that make you feel better?

I can't even get into any of your other offensive comments because this one still has me seeing red! Sort of black?! *takes a deep breath to keep myself from saying something that will get me banned*

[atomationage]

Olbermann makes an appeal to third party voters not to help Drumpf by voting for Stein or Johnson:

[LoneHaranguer]

15 hours ago, BoogieBurns said:

Not a single scientific poll agrees with this statement.

Never believe a scientific poll. Polling companies are very good at providing the requested results, which are then used to push the desired message. They could have probably done one that said Kaine won the VP debate, if the late-night comedians hadn't jumped right in and torn him apart. If you watched the analyses, Clinton was given credit for recovering well enough not to be totally crushed (which the more biased commentators called a "win"), but that's about it.

[partofme]

But Kaine did win the VP debate.  Pence lied his way through the debate.

[ChromaKelly]

13 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Never believe a scientific poll. Polling companies are very good at providing the requested results, which are then used to push the desired message. They could have probably done one that said Kaine won the VP debate, if the late-night comedians hadn't jumped right in and torn him apart. If you watched the analyses, Clinton was given credit for recovering well enough not to be totally crushed (which the more biased commentators called a "win"), but that's about it.

If you can't believe a poll, and popular opinion says Hillary Clinton won the first (and all) the debates, then how do you put forth that Trump won the first debate? Just because that's your opinion? The first debate was full of sniffing and incomplete sentences.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Never believe a scientific poll.

Right? Science. Pfft. Why belief science when we can just believe something is true? I'd write more, but I have to hide from the chemtrails. 

[LoneHaranguer]

14 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

If you can't believe a poll, and popular opinion says Hillary Clinton won the first (and all) the debates, then how do you put forth that Trump won the first debate? Just because that's your opinion?

No. That was the opinion of analysts with solid arguments to back them up.

[Kromm]

17 hours ago, Menrva said:

And this attitude here is why women don't speak up. The humiliation of having to explain what happened to you and all the people who won't believe you because:

you're just looking for attention

you were drinking - what did you think would happen

the way you were dressed, you were asking for it

You feel such shame for the abuse, that it happened, that you couldn't stop it, that you didn't see the signs. You can't bear the "I told you so"s. You feel rage when your attacker blames you for it, saying you were leading him on.

I know this because this is what I have to live with. And I hate myself for not being stronger and reporting the incident. It happened nearly 25 years ago and I still am ashamed. And so when I see these women coming forward with their stories and Trump calling them liars and his surrogates dismissing them as fame whores, I see red. I want to scream. My heart pounds. I hope they have the strength to not back down and hide. Because everyone is telling you to shut up and stop making such a fuss. You're too sensitive. You're making a big deal out of nothing, because you're nothing and he is everything.

Also because Truth is complicated and only in the hands of assholes with agendas is it oversimplified to try and shoehorn it into a simpler form.

For example, they'll find ONE accuser who's story is less believable or less well documented than the rest and act like it disproves/invalidates all of them.  One Cosby accuser who also had a consensual relationship with him, so it apparently is supposed to mean they all did. One accuser who took money in a settlement, so apparently it's supposed to mean she (and by inference all of them) are only in it for attention or money. Maybe one who was contacted by Gloria Allred, so it apparently means they're all opportunists, etc. 

With Trump the line is even more insidious, because even if he's not doing anything as obvious as slipping roofies into drinks or handing out qualudes, he's instead using his position of power to touch without consequences and then other kinds of pressure to coax them further. Even if the Donald Trump & Jeffrey Epstein thing with the 13 year old somehow winds up being totally false, there's more to being a predator than actually sticking a penis into someone. With Trump it's mainly about power, I think, and he seems to do anything possible to show his power over the women around him. 

This is the barrier. Having people dismiss it because all they see are words like "kiss" (several of the accusations), "grope" (several more of them), "insult" (Alicia Machado and many others) "see them naked" (the Beauty Pageant contestants, including the Teenagers), "workplace discrimination" (a lot of hiring polices at Trump companies which specify physical attractiveness), etc. Because you know... "none of that is rape".   Ugh. That's how some people think.

[ChromaKelly]

53 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

No. That was the opinion of analysts with solid arguments to back them up.

Where? Even Fox News said he lost the debate.

[BoogieBurns]

1 hour ago, LoneHaranguer said:

That was the opinion of analysts with solid arguments to back them up.

Let me guess, Jeff Lord, Kayleigh McEnany or Corey Lewandowski? They said after all three debates that Trump won. That's their job. The Clinton supporters said Hillary won. Look at the people in the middle, that aren't supporting either candidate, those people said Clinton swept the debates. 

Here's where Trump lost in each debate: 

1. Not paying taxes "Makes me smart" 

2. The moment he spoke

3. "I will leave you in suspense." Have you heard about Aleppo? Oh, Aleppo, Aleppo, Aleppo is a word I know. Nasty Woman. 

[film noire]

Quote

Let me guess, Jeff Lord, Kayleigh McEnany or Corey Lewandowski? 

Or Alex Jones. He's been telling his followers (aka the "In My BaSeMenT eVerytHinG I SaY IS TrUe" crowd) that all the scientific polling has been rigged -- so  HRC's 34 point Gallup lead is rigged, the NBC poll (HRC 52 Trump 21) is rigged, Reuters/Ipsos is rigged, etc, etc (probably rigged because the Lizard People are controlling our polling before they invade --  @Giant Misfit, I can't believe you're worrying abut the chemtrails when we have an impending alien invasion on our hands!)

Edited October 25, 2016 by film noire

[Padma]

Re: "the women just came out against him now".  No. Jill Harth sued him over his behavior long before this and won a settlement. Now he's calling her a liar for talking about her experience.  Now that those lawyers, including Lawrence Tribe (!) have said they will represent anyone credible for FREE if he sues them, Trump can't threaten and intimidate his victims any more. (Still can lie to his supporters and have them believe him, but as he said, "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes."  Nice attitude for someone we could make the most powerful man in the world.)

Re: Clinton v. Trump. To me it's simple--yes, one of them will be president. For me, I could line up all the criticisms of Clinton's supposed misdeeds in one column (server, lying about the airport in Bonia, CGF and CFF not as transparent as I'd like, that Bill's kind of sleazy...oh, even throw in Benghazi, which after 11 investigations (11!!) the House Republicans basically STILL found no wrongdoing on her part...Starr couldn't dredge up much about Whitewater or the stock investments either, though God knows he tried) her entire LIST (per rightwing) of wrong doings*  doesn't BEGIN to equal the corruption on Trump's!

Trump's partial list: Housing discrimination suit by FHA, employing illegal immigrants, giving 100 jobs recently to Roumanians rather than Americans at Maralago, fighting unionizing in Las Vegas hotel, paying no income tax apparently, ever--along with his unprecedented 40 year property tax abatements in NYC (he really has little civic duty); violating the embargo on doing business with Cuba, Trump University fraud (even his employees describe it as a scam), how crooked he was in Atlantic City stiffing contractors and shareholders (and the city itself) for his own benefit--then bragging about it at the debates!!!!, sexual misconduct with more than a dozen women, all the crude things he admitted to with Howard Stern, lying about charitable giving (over and over), routinely stiffing people who work for him, his crooked "Foundation", lying about giving "millions and millions to our vets", lying about giving money to the 9/`11 Fund..... oh and

...just lying SO MUCH in general.  He lies so easily about everything, (and yesterday called Hillary, "The biggest liar in history"--ha!).  That's how easy it is for him. No wonder his co-author/ghostwriter on The Art of the Deal calls him a sociopath".  Also, his refusal for even minimal transparency about his business partners, lenders, etc. abroad is pretty scary. And no transparency for 500+ companies?  Not good from someone who hits the Clintons all the time for transparency (they provide info about the Foundation and donors, about the campaign and donors, and 30 years of tax returns--Trump gives NONE of that. He is extremely secretive--and won't even commit, as Romney did, to a blind trust if he's elected)

Anyway.... "Clinton v. Trump?" How to decide?  

Step 1:  Line up all their "misdeeds" in side by side columns.

Step 2:  Line up all their evidence of public service and concern for others (charity counts, too, here) in side by side columns right next to their supposed "misdeeds" in a "Civic Responsibility" list.

Step 3:  Compare. Hmmm. Clinton's "Doing for Others" list is long, very long.  Trumps? .... Hello?

Step 4:  Vote Clinton.  Every president's a risk, but I'd rather take a chance with someone who has shown she actually, really DOES care about others and tries to help them.  Rather than an insecure, aggressive, mean-spirited man (watch the rallies! read all those tweets!) who's spent nearly 50 years thinking only about himself and how he can make more money.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Padma

[Kromm]

I posted this in the humor thread too (as part of a larger post), but I think this one clip is particularly relevant here.  Samantha Bee talks to some special guest stars about... what exactly it is about Hillary Clinton which threatens so many voters with penises.

[backformore]

22 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Most, if not all, of Trump's accusers came forward after he claimed at the second debate that what we heard on the Billy Bush tape was just talk and he would never do something like that.  (The NYT probably had contacted the two women discussed in their article before the debate, given the time needed to prepare and vet the article.)  More than one of his accusers HAD told other people about what happened; that's how the NYT and Washington Post reporters found out about them in the first place.  Trump only has himself to blame for this particular mess - all he had to do was sincerely apologize and move on, and he couldn't manage to do that.

Right - because not all of the incidents rise to the level of sexual assault that would be taken to court.   Some women say he kissed them on the lips, brushed against a breast - while it is sexual, and unwanted, it's not the kind of thing that he would have been arrested for.  these women are not going to court and asking for convictions, or a settlement. they're responding to the more serious stories.   They're saying - yeah, he's a perv, he touched me in a way that creeped me out. 

[Advance35]

Colin Powell is voting for Hillary Clinton

I don't know how much clout (if any) he has but for every Guilliani and Christie, I like being reminded that there is someone moderately sane.  IF he loses (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE) I swear I am going to feel like I have a new lease on life.   I've been thinking of changing careers and if the dictator is thwarted, Why the hell not.   Or it could be that this election is getting to me.

[33kaitykaity]

This --

'Not Wanted': Black Applicants Rejected for Trump Housing Speak Out

by CYNTHIA MCFADDEN, ANNA R. SCHECTER and HANNAH RAPPLEYE

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-wanted-black-applicants-rejected-trump-housing-speak-out-n671966

-- and this --

New Clinton Ad Features Woman Who Was Denied Housing by Trump Corporation for Being Black

http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-clinton-ad-features-woman-who-was-denied-housing-by-trump-corporation-for-being-black/

-- on the same day -- that's gonna leave a mark.  

Edited October 26, 2016 by 33kaitykaity

[Kitty Redstone]

Rachel Maddow previewed some of the McFadden story on her show tonight and it is powerful stuff.  Donald may have been a kid then but he hasn't changed at all.  That family has been taking, using and causing misery for at least two generations now.  They are disgraceful.

I feel so badly for Mae Wiggins.  It's been years but the pain the Trumps caused her still makes her cry. 

[millennium]

Adele Endorses Hillary at Miami Concert

[UYI]

It must have been her staff who posted this; Hillary always put an "H" at the end of her own tweets.

[candall]

I've been spending all my time on the Trump thread because 1)I already posted that I don't think there's any person alive, anywhere, more qualified than HRC to be president and 2)about every fourth post on the Trump board blows my mind with fresh evidence that it's unfathomable how anyone could think he's a suitable candidate for president.

But I have a some extra admiration for Hillary for something that probably not too many people noticed.

I was watching her march up the staircase to her plane and I noticed that she was using her hand on the rail a little bit to help pull herself along, although her step never faltered for a millisecond.  As someone with older knees that hurt sometimes--knees much younger than hers--I recognize and appreciate the subtlety of that hand grab.  I certainly would never want to force my knees to keep going up those stairs at a smart pace when they were screaming at me to stop.  I need some Motrin, just thinking about it.

I'm so sorry that, on top of everything else, she always has to keep in her mind that no one can be allowed to see that she's pulling off a SUPERHUMAN effort with her 24/7 schedule.

 

You go, grrrrrrl--you're awesome! 

[Darian]

Hillary keeps racking up the endorsements, but, to me, this is one of the most powerful. I find DeRayMckesson always worth reading or listening to and his endorsement of Hillary is no exception. It speaks to something, imo, that I've seen from her for as long as I've been following her career (since she became First Lady): she has the ability to admit she's wrong, listen, learn, educate herself, change, and then take positive action. She's done that in and out of the public eye, and it's something I said in this primary season would win her the nomination. 

DeRayMckesson: Why I'm Voting for Hillary Clinton

I'd quote some, but really, how he builds the piece is worth experiencing. 

[atomationage]

I'll quote one from Mckesson that is pretty much the basic point about voting for the Democrat:

Quote

Clinton has the plan to move American forward.  I believe in moving forward.

HRC is never looking backward to "a better time".  Sometimes she looks back at the way things were, but I don't ever recall her saying that life was nicer back then.  I remember her saying things like, if the other guys get their way, the plantation owners, mostly everyone else will serve or starve.