Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Ripster42]

It's what flip flopping means... Changing your mind is not a synonym of flip flopping. Changing your mind within hours or a couple of days, after a negative reaction, is flip flopping. Hillary did not change her stance on gay marriage after being jeered for it nearly a decade ago. Public opinion shifted over time, which should make Hillary's shift with the public understandable. After all, for the demographics and statistics for supporting gay marriage changed, were all those people flip flopping? Without political gain?

Until you realize why I specifically put the flat tax out on an aside: because it's such a clear example, and it literally happened mid-interview. It demonstrates the exact thing you're talking about. He's tailoring his flat tax message to the people on fox news, because that's what they want to hear, and then seems to remember that talking like that is going to fuck him so changes message.

[TZucchini]

1. Bucking 1 in 31 Trillion odds is easily explainable?

Honestly, I have no idea what those types of odds mean in regards to stock market trading. For example, how often since 1978 have individuals bucked those types of odds in the stock market? Does it happen hundreds of times a year? Has it never happened before?

The chairman of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange said he didn't find Clinton's gains to be surprising at all.

2. Do you know what Tyson got?

Sure. They got state funded loans, and the State turned their eye to pollution violations.

Seeing as Tyson was the largest employer in the State, it makes perfect sense why the Governor might do such things. And while that's a pretty shitty excuse, it's not evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

[NYC17]

Do i have to explain this to you again?

Trump is incoherent... unclear etc.

Flip-flopping is making a clear statement of support for a position and then making a clear statement of support for the other side later in your career.

- - - Updated - - -



No i wasnt.

I was highlighting the fact that she is a recognised political flipflopper. Every serious political observer will happily admit this. Its undeniable.

You can make whatever u want from this fact... if you see that damages her image then fair enough.

No, you were highlighting it in an attempt to show how she is worse than Trump. You just also happened to ignore, then argue against, the fact that Trump is a recognized flip flopper. He just does it so often you declared it as him being "all over the place"

Haha....again.

[Felya]

I can totally agree with what you are saying... Trump is a fukking idiot, undeniable. And he hasnt had political power in the political arena therefore we cannot say with any certainty that he will abuse that political power... only opinion will say he will.

This only true if you ignore that Trump has abused every inch of power he has ever had. From dodging the draft to tanking USFL to his marriages to his slumb lord status to his media notoriety leading to a presidential bid. The idea that Trump will for the first time in his history, not abuse the power, not only contradicts what appears to be his nature, but also what he has been saying on the campaign trail.

My point is that Hillary has proven that she is corrupt and has abused her political power.

No, she does not have proven, there is a lot of space between speculated and proven. Quite a few of Trump's abuses of power are proven. Be it settled in court or out of it. If you remove Trump's speculation, like him owing money to Russian oligarchs, he is still far ahead in abusing power, than if you include Hillary's speculation.

This is what I meant when saying I'm not going to buy the bullshit of Trump being an unknown. Sorry, not going to pretend Trump's history does not exist, because he never held office. Same way I'm not taking my car to a someone who never fixed a car, because they never made a mistake fixing cars. It's an absurd argument to make...

By extension she is 100% establishment, she represents all that is bad about US politics for the past 50 years. She is the face of a political system that a growing movement in the USA is trying to change.

Yes, and unless your calls for change have 0 meaning and 0 reason for them, Trump isn't the guy to change the system. With Hillary you get more of the same. With Trump, you get Trump, not some ambiguous change we need. This argument, much like the previous, hinges on the same thing. Trump being treated as something other than who he is. An anti-establishment candidate, that bitches about his million donation not winning him the presidancy, does not understand what change astablishment needs. Going from crony capitalism to plutocracy or oligarchy, is going in the opposite direction.

I also dont like Trump supporters, so u dont have to point out their flaws lol... but they have simply ended up on the right side imo. Very similiar to those 'racists' who voted Brexit in the UK, bad people who actually got the vote correct. Voting out of the establishment control. Scotland almost got independance by 1-2% and that is another example of massive sections of society wanting to fukk off the establishment.

It is stupid to compare Trump to Brexit. This is nothing a like.

I am also not talking about some Trump supporters, I'm talking to you directly. I try not to generalize, which should be clear by you talking racists and me saying nothing of it.

Right there is my position.

Yes, the I hate Trump, but ignore his history to vote for a change in Trump.

[Symphonic]

No, the issue is your differance of opinion. Most define flip flopping as an immidiet change in opinion, not one that takes years to change. What your actual demand is, for politicians to try not to adopt to the constituents. You are asking politicians to stick to what they said years ago, even if public opinion shifted. That's not complaints about flip flopping, that's complaints that people are doing their job.

I assume you didn't believe Mitt Romney was a flip flopper, then? Oh how I wish we had Mitt back.

[Deleted]

No, you were highlighting it in an attempt to show how she is worse than Trump. You just also happened to ignore, then argue against, the fact that Trump is a recognized flip flopper. He just does it so often you declared it as him being "all over the place"

Haha....again.

Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating... and any search on the internet clearly shows Hillary is viewed as the political flipflopper across the board. Its hilarious that anyone will even question this tbh.

Im going with the consensus on this one thanks.

You are welcome to believe the opposite ofc.

[Ripster42]

I assume you didn't believe Mitt Romney was a flip flopper, then? Oh how I wish we had Mitt back.

Mitt is actually someone who could do the job. At least in that election you had two people who could, to choose between; even if you might have disagreed with their positions. This election hasn't given that choice.

[NYC17]

Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating... and any search on the internet clearly shows Hillary is viewed as the political flipflopper across the board. Its hilarious that anyone will even question this tbh.

Im going with the consensus on this one thanks.

You are welcome to believe the opposite ofc.

Where have I questioned it? Please share that...

Meanwhile, back in reality, what I've actually and clearly questioned is your insistence that Trump isn't one.

[Merkava]

Honestly, I have no idea what those types of odds mean in regards to stock market trading. For example, how often since 1978 have individuals bucked those types of odds in the stock market? Does it happen hundreds of times a year? Has it never happened before?

The chairman of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange said he didn't find Clinton's gains to be surprising at all.



Sure. They got state funded loans, and the State turned their eye to pollution violations.

Seeing as Tyson was the largest employer in the State, it makes perfect sense why the Governor might do such things. And while that's a pretty shitty excuse, it's not evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

The odds are what they are. 1 in 31 Trillion is 1 in 31 Trillion, whether you're trading cattle futures or trying to win the Powerball 10 times in a row.

You're making the same losing arguement that Nexx made so I'll give you the same speech;

You're right. I shouldn't complain. I mean people get convicted on DNA evidence, and that's only like what, 1 in 100 Billion? This is 1 in 31 Trillion, that's only a little worse.

Listen, if you think that she beat those odds, legitmately, if you really think that the person who beat those odds wasn't a financial genius and wasn't some random lucky housewife, but instead was the wife of the soon to be Governor of Arkansas, with connections both to people who would desire access to the governors office, and with people who were under investigation by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for systematic violations of Merc rules during the entire period Mrs. Clinton was their client, well then, you're doing more than telling us what you think, you're also telling us how you think. There doesn't appear to be anything that you won't believe, and there's no excuse that you won't make.

And in regards to Leo Melamed, well the Clintons enlisted him to come to their defense. Here's what independent experts had to say;

Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham's successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks." USA Today concluded in April 1994 after a four-week study that "Hillary Rodham Clinton had some special treatment while winning a small fortune in commodities. In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.

Financial writer Edward Chancellor noted in 1999 that Clinton made her money by betting "on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled." Bloomberg News columnist Caroline Baum and hedge fund manager Victor Niederhoffer published a detailed 1995 analysis in National Review that found typical patterns and behaviors in commodities trading not met and concluded that her explanations for her results were highly implausible. Possibilities were raised that broker actions such as front running of trades, or a long straddle with the winning positions thereof assigned to a favored client, had taken place.

In a 1998 article, Marshall Magazine, a publication of the Marshall School of Business, sought to frame the trading, the nature of the results, and possible explanations for them:

These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day.
Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account.

My argument rests on the opinion of various experts, all weighing in on the vast unlikelihood of her achieving what she did on her own, and an understanding of Hillary's connections to a firm who was managing her account which was suspended for the exact same causes that were underlined above in my quoted portion above, as well as the access and treatment given to Tyson Foods by Clinton when he was Governor.

Even if you ignore all of the evidence pointing to pay for play, and just want to say, hell that's all a coincidence, you're still left with 1 in 31 Trillion odds that she did it legitimately. Denying this borders on mental illness.

[Symphonic]

Mitt is actually someone who could do the job. At least in that election you had two people who could, to choose between; even if you might have disagreed with their positions. This election hasn't given that choice.

I agree. Gone are the days of good candidates.

[NYC17]

Mitt is actually someone who could do the job. At least in that election you had two people who could, to choose between; even if you might have disagreed with their positions. This election hasn't given that choice.

One of the stupidest things about this election is that in 2012 Mitt was eviscerated for saying he likes to fire people. It was a dumb statement blown way out of proportion.

Fast forward to 2016. They nominated someone whose recent claim to fame is a reality show in which his entire reason for existing on the show is to...fire people.

[Felya]

Why would I care about the statute of limitations? This was an old controversy. Of course they expired. I'm just saying you have no actual evidence. You have a statistical study... that even as improbable as it might be, says its possible she did make that money legit. That study isn't evidence, it isn't a smoking gun, and any court of law would laugh you out of the courtroom if you tried to base a case on it, assuming they didn't just hold you in contempt for wasting the court's time.

There is a catch, if you consider what the stock market behavior is like. It has a lot of similarities with gambling, espeacially investing in futures. If you watched Trading Places, that's kinda what those orange harvest reports were about. If the stock market was treated like a casino it behaves as, Hillary would have had a long talk with casino security over the odds she hit. As does anyone who goes on a remarkable streak in a casino.

I realize I'm building a strawman, but the goal is to show that similar gain, in an another industry built on speculation, those sorts of odds would be inviting a lot more scuitny than Hillary has. Even with bottoming out of banks in 2008-2009 and their current return to previous value, you would still not make as much as Hillery did on these cattle futures.

[Shalcker]

It's still not actual evidence. I'm sorry but its not. Certainly it's suspicious, but without evidence, I'm afraid you have nothing. Making a lot of money from a fortuitous investment isn't illegal. And if evidence had been found of wrong doing, surely Hillary would have paid the price for it. But no evidence was found. Not saying it didn't exist. Only that none was found. And without evidence, you have no case. I'm sorry but that's how the law works. No court of law will take your "feels" as evidence. A statistical improbability is also not evidence. Evidence is facts and information. All you have is a study that says its highly unlikely she made that money legit, but not impossible.

What we have with Trump connections to Russia is not actual evidence. Certainly it's suspicious, but it's not evidence of Russian connection. Making money from consultations to someone who had deals with Russia isn't illegal. Neither is acting as intermediary for sales (especially if Russian counterpart actually sues you once it doesn't go through). There can be some kind of Russian connection, but it remains unproven. And without clear connection there is no case against Trump.

Obviously no court would take the case against what Trump advisers did too.

[Felya]

I assume you didn't believe Mitt Romney was a flip flopper, then? Oh how I wish we had Mitt back.

I don't remember him flip flopping, it doesn't mean he didn't, I just don't remember. That's not an issue I ever had with Romney.

- - - Updated - - -

What we have with Trump connections to Russia is not actual evidence. Certainly it's suspicious, but it's not evidence of Russian connection. Making money from consultations to someone who had deals with Russia isn't illegal. Neither is acting as intermediary for sales (especially if Russian counterpart actually sues you once it doesn't go through). There can be some kind of Russian connection, but it remains unproven. And without clear connection there is no case against Trump.

Obviously no court would take the case against what Trump advisers did too.

Do you believe Trump is best for Russia? Can you guess what the speculation over Trump's connection to Russia is supposed to show?

- - - Updated - - -

One of the stupidest things about this election is that in 2012 Mitt was eviscerated for saying he likes to fire people. It was a dumb statement blown way out of proportion.

Fast forward to 2016. They nominated someone whose recent claim to fame is a reality show in which his entire reason for existing on the show is to...fire people.

The stupidest one came from Romney's camp, where they bitched Batman was timed to release with the election, because Bane Capital hitting the news around the time Bane was Batman's villain.

[Merkava]

The stupidest one came from Romney's camp, where they bitched Batman was timed to release with the election, because Bane Capital hitting the news around the time Bane was Batman's villain.

I remember Rush Limbaugh saying something about that, but I don't remember any big stir being raised by the Romney campaign.

[Felya]

Listen.. i fukking hate Trump as well. But faced with a choice of a corrupt criminal and a fukkwit... im going for the fukkwit.

Trump is a corrupt criminal and a fuckwit... No one is disagreeing with you on the corrupt part, but they do on the criminal part. Your hinging your bets on Trump being corrupt and persecuted in the only industry he ever worked, needing to be ignored because that industry not being politics, is a bullshit excuse that asks people to litteraly ignore Trump's history, unless it's good history. Trump isn't a new born or some Mowgli derivative that just came from the woods. If in your Trump hate, you didn't ignore every reason why you should hate him, you wouldn't be supporting Trump against Hillary.

[Kyriani]

What we have with Trump connections to Russia is not actual evidence. Certainly it's suspicious, but it's not evidence of Russian connection. Making money from consultations to someone who had deals with Russia isn't illegal. Neither is acting as intermediary for sales (especially if Russian counterpart actually sues you once it doesn't go through). There can be some kind of Russian connection, but it remains unproven. And without clear connection there is no case against Trump.

Obviously no court would take the case against what Trump advisers did too.

I can't argue with this... not that I made such a claim.

[BrerBear]

For a woman so adamant about equal rights for her sex and for homosexuals, the proof is in the pudding shall we say?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...led-put-death/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us...omen.html?_r=0

What do you Trumpists really think you're accomplishing with this narrative?

I'm gay and neither me nor any gay people I know have the slightest reaction to this line of attack. It doesn't even get us talking, and we love to talk.

Yes, these countries do horrible things to gay people (and women). We're quite aware of that. But that doesn't mean we get to disengage with them entirely in world issues. We can apply pressure to change them, but we still have to live with them. Bringing them closer is in many ways the most effective way to enact social change.

By all means, though, keep wasting your time with this argument even though you aren't swaying anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you need to research trump's positions and how he's changed them. Is he pro-life, or pro-choice? Anti-gay marriage, pro-gay marriage, or anti-gay marriage again? Was he for the iraq war or against it? Does he believe that taking campaign donations is a good or a bad thing? Is he self-funding his campaign, or isn't he?

Your bullshit doesn't track. He's literally changed his position on a flat tax mid interview.

And it's so weird to see them pointing to Hillary's position change on gay marriage as a problem.
I've been fighting for 20 years to get people to come around and support gay marriage.
Why the hell would I hold it against them when they do?!

[Shalcker]

Do you believe Trump is best for Russia? Can you guess what the speculation over Trump's connection to Russia is supposed to show?

Sorry, but Russian media position on this is basically "Hillary = War and further Destruction (of Middle East and beyond); Trump = Maybe War, Maybe Not"...
...it's not hard to make a choice here. Hillary is known quality. Trump might or might not be bad.

[TZucchini]

The odds are what they are. 1 in 31 Trillion is 1 in 31 Trillion, whether you're trading cattle futures or trying to win the Powerball 10 times in a row.

"The odds are what they are" is a terrible explanation of what the odds actually mean, in regards to futures trading. This isn't a DNA analysis. This isn't picking numbers at random.

Aren't you the least bit curious as to how many times someone has bucked a 1 in 31 trillion odds in the stock market? I mean if it happens hundreds of times each year, this entire conversation becomes worthless. You're basically supporting your entire argument with a paper none of us have the capacity to understand.

And in regards to Leo Melamed, well the Clintons enlisted him to come to their defense.

This is a completely unproven allegation. There's literally zero evidence for that claim. Conspiracy theory level stuff right here.