One reason why the press doesn’t give you-know-who the benefit of the doubt

Somehow — I can’t imagine why — this financial matter has fallen down the memory hole as of late.  Here are a few paragraphs from Wikipedia:

In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months…

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.”[3] 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.”[9] According to The Washington Post‘s May 1994 analysis, “while Clinton’s account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978–79 period.” However, the Post’s comparison was of absolute profits, not the percentage rate of return.[14] 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.[15]

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.”[16] 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.[17] 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.[14][17]

That said, I fully grant such matters are not closely correlated with ultimate political performance.  But I am seeing so, so much apologia, selective event citation, and wishful thinking these days…

What is also interesting is that this is another case where — relative to actual legal priorities — one can correctly suggest that an actual prosecution was not warranted.

Please do note I regard it as my first priority to try to understand and also explain the (rather dire) situation we are in, rather than to put maximum thumb weight on the outcome I would most like to see happen.

Comments

She's the best. There s nothing she can't do. Go girl

I hope that's sarcasm and not a comment from the education apocalypse.

The smartest woman (In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed woman is queen.) on the planet obtained a position in the longest running Arkansas law firm only after her Willie boy man was elected state AG. Merely a coincidence. Keep moving. Nothing to see here.

It was one $100,000 bribe. All that was needed was to obtain transcripts of the trading account and compare to actual market price movements during the period that would show there were bogus trades. It isn't rocket science.

The SEC's so-called examiners also failed to get those docs and market trade prices for Madoff's massive Ponzi scam.

The smartest woman (In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed woman is queen.) on the planet

I hope that's bad wording and not a ridiculously sexist remark.

Politically-Correct norms must be enforced. The establishment media eagerly does so.

Is it somehow breaking news here that the general U.S. news media has an overwhelming leftish bias and strongly favors the Democratic Party?

The premise of this blog post, and of the larger related conversation, is that Hillary Clinton is NOT "given the benefit of the doubt." It might be more accurate to say that prominent media outlets usually favor the Democratic candidate, and that Hillary Clinton is unusual for receiving less than expected support.

This clearly details how the Press has it in for Hillary Clinton and how they have explicit reporting rules that favor Drumpf!

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

I understand the need to investigate Clinton's past thoroughly, she's probably going to be president. And in the 70s she probably got involved in some sort of scam with the cattle futures, though I suspect she didn't make a habit of it and given the limited choices available to the US I think she's the right one.

But I think there's two serious counter-concerns.

First a lot of the scandals that hit the press are more or less standard Washington operating procedure. For instance it's expected that a major donor will be able to get face time with the legislator themselves. Why is it suddenly now a scandal that donors to Clinton's charity were trying to get facetime with her? It's problematic, but Clinton is hardly the first to do it, and It's not even clear that the donors did get preference.

The second part is they really haven't applied the same standard to Trump, they'll cover his antics and inflammatory statements, but not his actual dealings with government.

Most of the influence peddling Clinton is being accused of, that's all stuff Donald Trump has basically bragged about doing (and is arguably how he made his initial billions). Even now there are instances of attorney generals dropping investigations into TrumpU around the same time they got big campaign contributions from Trump. The hint of corruption that surrounds Clinton is basically the calling card of Trump, yet the media accounts actually leave Clinton looking worse.

One difference is that the chattering class seems to be more or less in agreement that Trump is a corrupt, incompetent egomaniac. So from an editorial perspective, the marginal returns to reporting on Trump's dealings are significantly lower than those to reporting on Clinton. Additionally, Trump constantly provides those editors with other material to cover, whereas Clinton has been mostly lying low and leaving the press to their own devices.

'they’ll cover his antics and inflammatory statements, but not his actual dealings with government'

Well, he is a man who apparently has discovered how to get harges dropped, at least in Florida, even if he did have to pay an IRS tax penalty after a certain ever so coincidental chain of circumstances - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/01/trump-pays-irs-a-penalty-for-his-foundation-violating-rules-with-gift-to-florida-attorney-general/

'Donld Trump paid the IRS a $2,500 penalty this year, an official at Trump's company said, after it was revealed that Trump's charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida's attorney general.

The improper donation, a $25,000 gift from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, was made in 2013. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. She decided not to pursue the case.'

See, Trump is the sort of man who obviously cannot be bought - because he is the one who knows how the art of the deal works in public affairs, and is not the one for sale.

"charitable foundation had violated tax laws by giving a political contribution to a campaign group connected to Florida’s attorney general."

Maybe he was in need.

Alright, let's take you at face value:

Clinton is as dirty as Trump, and vice versa, with regards to money.

But what about Clinton being reckless with our national secrets as secretary of state? That shows extremely poor judgement and putting her own convenience above our nation's security.

BTW, her corruption didn't end in the 70's. Bill was somehow convincing Russian investment bankers to pay $300k for an hour speech while Hillary was secretary of state. They have not changed since the 70's.

OK, she was careless with texting.

But can you show me one example of a secret she passed that could have been hacked?

The FBI couldn't.

Look, you idiot. Clinton set up a private email server, similar to those run by other high officials. Yes, this was for personal control and privacy. No one disagrees that it was intended for non-classified communications. All that happened, no surprise when people can't "CC" or "BCC" to save their lives, is that there was cross-contamination. In the words of Ghostbusters "don't cross the streams." Easier in words than in practice.

What happened was that very limited first order (direct classified emails) got in the wrong stream, a few more second order (talk about classified emails) and even more third order (talk about things that were classified) snuck in. That should not surprise anyone either. Ever heard of the over-classification problem?

What is Overclassification?

Oh uh the left is starting to panic. And rightfully so- most likely they have destroyed the long term effectiveness of playing the race card and Trump still might win. This is turning into an absolute disaster for leftists and they are stating to flip out. It is delightful to watch as the panic starts to filter down to the low status foot solider like anon who were assured there hackery would result in victory.

Clinton is as dirty as Trump, and vice versa, with regards to money.

Not remotely.

But what about Clinton being reckless with our national secrets as secretary of state? That shows extremely poor judgement and putting her own convenience above our nation’s security.

Bad, though not that unusual, and there's no reason to think Trump would be any better on this kind of screwup.

Bill was somehow convincing Russian investment bankers to pay $300k for an hour speech while Hillary was secretary of state.

Lots of people have paid Bill Clinton vast amounts of money to give speeches. They've paid other people vast quantities as well, it's a pretty typical gig for people who are really famous but don't have other income streams.

spencer September 5, 2016 at 3:41 pm

OK, she was careless with texting.

Carelessness that would have got anyone else jail time.

But can you show me one example of a secret she passed that could have been hacked? The FBI couldn’t.

The FBI wasn't try. But essentially all of them *could* have been hacked. She continued to use her Blackberry even when in Russia and China. Which means anything she sent was probably hacked.

What the FBI cannot prove yet is that any were. But they all could have been. That is the point of opting out of the government's secure service. It is secure for a reason. But the law doesn't apply to Hillary and so she can do what she wants.

11 anon September 5, 2016 at 3:41 pm

Look, you idiot. Clinton set up a private email server, similar to those run by other high officials.

No she did not. No one else has ever so flagrantly violated the law in this way. Colin Powell used a private e-mail account for private e-mail but he did not set up a server in his closet.

Yes, this was for personal control and privacy.

That is, it was intended to directly violate the law. Her e-mail are work product and must be turned over.

No one disagrees that it was intended for non-classified communications.

Actually no one claims this. Hillary does not as she claims she does not understand what classified means. However she sent all her communication through her homebrew nonsense whether it was classified or not.

All that happened, no surprise when people can’t “CC” or “BCC” to save their lives, is that there was cross-contamination.

That is not true either. She directly talked about classified topics to other people. This was not an accident. She discussed up coming drone strikes for instance. This is a gross violation of the law. She named agents. It wasn't a slip of the finger with the BCC button.

What I like about the Clintons is the way they corrupt everyone else around them. The way their lies destroy others. The feminist movement has been set back decades by their insistence that Bill's sexually harassment was just peachy because he supported abortion and wasn't a Republican. Now Hillary is smearing the rest of the Left with her slime as well. You have just sold out any relationship you might have had with the truth to protect and evil and corrupt harridan. Well done.

Carelessness that would have got anyone else jail time.

No it wouldn't. There have been many other examples of people being careless and exposing classified information, no one has gotten jail time unless they were deliberately giving information they knew to be classified to someone who they knew to be unauthorized.

No she did not. No one else has ever so flagrantly violated the law in this way. Colin Powell used a private e-mail account for private e-mail but he did not set up a server in his closet.

Lots of officials used private email accounts for official business. Hillary was unusual in that the server was under her physical control, but that's arguably better than using Google or Yahoo.

Actually no one claims this. Hillary does not as she claims she does not understand what classified means. However she sent all her communication through her homebrew nonsense whether it was classified or not.

Actually yes, pretty much everyone does claim this. As for her not understanding classification I suspect you're the one who's ignorant. When you're working at that level with information close to the source it can be unclear whether something is considered classified or which information in the message is classified.

Aaron Luchko September 5, 2016 at 6:35 pm

No it wouldn’t. There have been many other examples of people being careless and exposing classified information, no one has gotten jail time unless they were deliberately giving information they knew to be classified to someone who they knew to be unauthorized.

Yes it would. Hillary was not careless. She went out of her way to avoid the basic security features of the government system. She did not just leave things lying around where a Russian might pick them up. She spent time and money to make sure anyone could.

Lots of officials used private email accounts for official business.

Name three.

Hillary was unusual in that the server was under her physical control, but that’s arguably better than using Google or Yahoo.

No it is not. Yahoo is likely to be more secure. Again she went out of her way to avoid the legal obligations of her job. That is worse than using Google. At least Google would still have those e-mails. Hilary showed malice aforethought.

Actually yes, pretty much everyone does claim this.

Again name three. Hillary herself does not.

As for her not understanding classification I suspect you’re the one who’s ignorant. When you’re working at that level with information close to the source it can be unclear whether something is considered classified or which information in the message is classified.

We are not talking about whether or not any one piece of information should have been classified - although Hillary had the power to make that decision herself and she should have known at her level all information is "born secret" unless someone specifically says it is not. The problem is that information clearly marked as classified went through her closet and she claimed she did not know what the clear classification mark meant. So she could not have segregated the classified and the non-classified because she now claims she did not go to any of the classes where they taught you the difference. Even though she signed a form stating that she had completed them. If she does not know what a classified e-mail looks like - and at her level that is, again, basically all of them - she cannot separate them. Nor did she try.

And she also told someone to strip off the headers, cut and paste a secret file and send it to her on her homebrew system. So there is that.

No it wouldn’t. There have been many other examples of people being careless and exposing classified information, no one has gotten jail time unless they were deliberately giving information they knew to be classified to someone who they knew to be unauthorized.

This is hopelessly, hilariously, demonstrably false. Just two brief counterexamples

https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine

There is nothing sadder than "if my stupidity angers people, I must be winning."

It wasn't just 'convenience' -- unless, by convenience, you mean evading government-record preservation rules and being able to selectively 'wipe' her email to remove anything that might prove embarrassing (or incriminating). And given the amateurish nature of her home-brew mail server (combined with the extreme value of the target), it's a virtual certainty that it was hacked.

What does it say about a person that "Hillary haz email" is the best argument they have?

Again, let's be clear. These are not smoking gun emails, showing bribe, treason, closed bridges. Those have never been found. These are just emails. Yes, kept in the wrong closet.

It is only if you are around the bend, derangement syndrome, that if you assume an email you have not seen is proof of a crime you may not even know.

It's sick.

This is hopelessly, hilariously, demonstrably false. Just two brief counterexamples

Your two brief counterexamples are hopelessly, hilariously, demonstrably inapplicable.

The navy engineer was explicitly and specifically taking classified intel home. He exceeded Clinton both in volume of classified material, but also in the fact that he was deliberately mishandling the classified info. (even then he seems to be an outlier in the degree of punishment he received)

The submarine sailor, he was secretly photographing classified sections of the submarine over a course of months. Not only was there again a specific intent to mishandle classified info, but there was a lot of suspicion that he was looking to sell the info to foreign governments.

The thing is these are the two strongest examples I've seen, the fact is that it is accepted that people make mistakes and classified intel is inadvertently mishandled all the time. And like Hillary, these cases don't result in prosecution.

anon September 5, 2016 at 9:47 pm

What does it say about a person that “Hillary haz email” is the best argument they have?

I don't know. Who has only the e-mail argument? Clinton is a comprehensively vile, incompetent, law-breaking corrupt harridan. With or without e-mail.

Again, let’s be clear. These are not smoking gun emails, showing bribe, treason, closed bridges. Those have never been found. These are just emails. Yes, kept in the wrong closet.

Let's be clear - every claim Hillary's defenders have made has been untrue. They have tried to explain this away but everything they have said is a lie. These are smoking gun e-mails. They show Hillary's massive contempt for the rule of law. Along with the rest of the Democratic Party which is letting her get away with it.

21 Aaron Luchko September 5, 2016 at 11:53 pm

Your two brief counterexamples are hopelessly, hilariously, demonstrably inapplicable.

And the corruption continues ....

The navy engineer was explicitly and specifically taking classified intel home.

And keeping it in his closet perhaps? Hillary was also explicitly and specifically taking classified intel home. And storing it, illegally, on her illegal server.

He exceeded Clinton both in volume of classified material, but also in the fact that he was deliberately mishandling the classified info. (even then he seems to be an outlier in the degree of punishment he received)

How do you know he exceeded Clinton in volume? Her entire e-mail set up was intended to mishandle classified information. As it did. That is exactly the same. The fact you cannot see it is merely proof of the corruption at the heart of the left.

The submarine sailor, he was secretly photographing classified sections of the submarine over a course of months. Not only was there again a specific intent to mishandle classified info, but there was a lot of suspicion that he was looking to sell the info to foreign governments.

Hillary did it over the course of years. If she was selling it that would have been an improvement. She was *giving*it*away*. With specific intent to mishandle as well.

Hillary is far from a perfect candidate, but escaping prosecution and innocence are not as far apart as they are from guilt and conviction.

Who actually paid a fine for an illegal contibution to the Florida AG?

You got nuthin but a pile of emails and a sick faith that there must be something in them somewhere.

Aaron Luchko September 5, 2016 at 2:57 pm

And in the 70s she probably got involved in some sort of scam with the cattle futures, though I suspect she didn’t make a habit of it and given the limited choices available to the US I think she’s the right one.

Again one of the things that impresses me about the Clintons is their ability to corrupt. Here is someone admitting Hillary was probably corrupt but that now she has bought the DNC, she should be supported. Is there any way to cleanse this filth once you have swallowed it? I don't think so.

Why is it suddenly now a scandal that donors to Clinton’s charity were trying to get facetime with her? It’s problematic, but Clinton is hardly the first to do it, and It’s not even clear that the donors did get preference.

So basically it is fine for Clinton to sell her office because everyone does it? Again, once you have made this argument, is there any going back? Second the allegation is not that Clinton merely gave them face time but that she made decisions in their favor. Notice that these are not local businessmen from her constituency but foreigners. America has laws about foreigners buying politicians. Which also don't seem to apply to Hillary. Laws are for little people.

The second part is they really haven’t applied the same standard to Trump,

A nice piece of misdirection. Trump is not and never has been Secretary of State. Nor a Senator from New York. There is no same standard to apply. Although I will concede it is highly likely he paid people to attend his wedding. Hillary for instance.

Most of the influence peddling Clinton is being accused of, that’s all stuff Donald Trump has basically bragged about doing (and is arguably how he made his initial billions).

Where and when did Trump ever brag about being paid off by the Saudis? Where and when did Trump ever brag about any of this nonsense?

The hint of corruption that surrounds Clinton is basically the calling card of Trump, yet the media accounts actually leave Clinton looking worse.

Obama has weaponized the DoJ. If there was the slightest hint of corruption about Trump he would have been charged. Even if there was a complete lack of evidence he would have been charged - as Rick Perry was for instance. As General Petraeus was when there was a chance he would run for office. Hillary is corrupt as you admit. Trump probably is but there is no evidence or even a hint of evidence that he is.

This explains it well.

Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media’s 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

"Confessions of a Clinton reporter:"

LOL, those aren't confessions. That's a transparent attempt by a Left Leaning reporter to frame press reporting towards Hillary Clinton as hostile. Which is ridiculous. If you actually think that Hillary Clinton get's less favorable coverage that Donald Trump, you really should sit this election out.

Watts, anyone with a brain can see that Trump gets more favorable coverage than Hillary from everyone except CNBC. Most of his coverage is just reporting what he said or did, as if it makes sense, when it usually does not.

"Watts, anyone with a brain can see that Trump gets more favorable coverage than Hillary ..."

Perhaps it might seem that way from your perspective, but I don't think the majority of US voters would agree with the idea that the media is exhibiting a strong pro-Trump bias.

Furthermore, using the phrasing "anyone with a brain" is an indication of a weak argument. If you have an inherently strong argument there's no reason for such loaded phrasing.

You're overlooking the obvious fact that The Clintons did it while in public service. It's still sometimes referred to as public service, and was intended to be such, but the sad truth is that politicians are virtually all self seeking , self serving and corrupt. They're also mediocre and see politics as a way to get somewhere that they couldn't on effort and merit.

Anyone can see that D. Trump is no bargain. But, for some of us, he is seized of the only quality he really needs. He is NOT H. Clinton.

If only she was a prodigy at diplomacy and foreign policy as she was at commodities trading, Arab Spring, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Russia might not have been such a bungle.

Anyone who was truly this good at commodities trading would have ditched their crappy career in Arkansas politics (along with their crappy adulterous husband) and become a commodities trading billionaire.

At this point, however, what difference does it make?

She did what all smart people do who win big at commodities trading but who are not particularly skilled at it overall-- got out before she lost what she'd made. Plenty of people make a lot of money in commodities trading. Most go on to lose it all and more.

The trading was a 1 in 31 trillion chance. What are you, some kind of science denier?

Sorry, no. She invested with a friend from Tyson in a deal set up by a sleazy (aren't they all?) commodities dealer. At the end of each day, the up trades were sent to her account and the down trades to the other guy's. The plan was to give her $100,000, and once that was done, the trading was over.

If she could have made $100,000 in 10 months on her own, reading the WSJ and all, why wouldn't she have continued to trade, free lance, for several years and make a few mill? We all know she likes money.

just write in Lee Kuan Yew and be done with the whole sorry affair.

Lee Kuan Yew would Build That Wall, maintain Anglo-European ethnic majority, and bring back corporal punishment.

How Yew's unapologetic authoritarianism gets a pass while Trump is literally Hitler mystifies me.

Lee Kuan Yew "In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion"

We can be better than that, and many are.

You can't be better than that in the face of societiea that aren't. Your argument is like dismantling nuclear weapons unilaterally and therefore ending MAD; it's suicidal.

Are you seriously maintaining that Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt?

No, but the idea that Trump may allow the Democrats to win big in 2016 is causing some people of rare generosity and principles to wonder about the value of the hundreds of millions of dollars they spent over decades trying to stop the apparent nightmare they can now see looming in their expensively created software models, for example from this company - http://www.i-360.com/

Or as noted by the SourceWatch wiki - 'i360 is a data analytics company that maintains "a database of over 250 million 18+ adults, including the 190 million who are registered to vote" sourced from "multiple consumer data compilers." It was dubbed the "Koch's data mine" by Politico. The for-profit company was founded by Michael Palmer, former chief technology officer of John McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign. Following the 2008 election, it was merged with the Koch-funded nonprofit Themis, a right-wing voter database project. The Koch's Freedom Partners is a major investor in i360, according to Politico.

Many observers think the project has already eclipsed the voter lists maintained by the Republican National Committee, posing a risk for some candidates and to the party's influence.'

"...posing a risk for some candidates and to the party’s influence."

How?

In theory, the RNC shares its data with all Republican candidates.

A for profit company has no need to act as if it is working to benefit a single party, and as a company, is not subject to anything resembling a political party's priorities.

For example, imagine that someone who once ran as a libertarian vice presidential candidate decided, as a lark, to run again. Such a data resource would then be used against the Republican Party in an attempt to win the election.

Nothing wrong with this, of course. Unless you are the RNC.

What percentage of Tyler's blog posts are direct (Straussian) rebuttals to Krugman blog posts and op-eds?

Could someone smarter than I explain what is meant by a "Straussian rebuttal"?

For our purposes, a "Straussian rebuttal" is a rebuttal that keeps secret the fact that it is a direct rebuttal, the better to avoid accusations that Tyler and Krugman are waging an economics blogosphere alpha-dog battle. Which they pretty much are.

So "Straussian" means a hidden subtext?

That's how I understand the term, although I might take it even further: "hidden true purpose, disguised as something else more innocuous and respectable."

1%

It's probably 1% or less, but Tyler makes so many posts, that the rate is probably 1 every couple of weeks.

'Please do note I regard it as my first priority to try to understand and also explain the (rather dire) situation we are in, rather than to put maximum thumb weight on the outcome I would most like to see happen.'

Is this another attempt to convince some people you are not neurotypical? Or that economists truly are incapable of actually knowing what is worth valuing, compared to merely measuring cost?

Besides, though most people not be aware of it, Hillary Rodham also posed in the nude, long before any of Trump's wives did - 'Somewhere out there is a naked photograph of Hillary Clinton…

Between the 1940s and the 1970s, several ivy league colleges had a very strange requirement for all their incoming freshmen students. Harvard, Yale, Wellesley College, Vassar as well as Brown University, were among the elite American colleges that asked all the young men and women enrolled in their first year, to pose nude. Thousands and thousands of pictures were taken of students, including such notable names such as George Bush, Diane Sawyer, Meryl Streep and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

For those of you who don’t remember or didn’t catch the scandal back in 1995, a New York Times reporter and Yale graduate Ron Rosenbaum broke the story.' http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/11/12/that-time-harvard-and-yale-took-naked-photos-of-all-their-freshmen-students/

That Hillary photo is one that I do not want to see.

Barack, peace be upon him, felt the need to write, for posterity, two autobiographies. Which was big-time considering he simply was a failed community agitator.

Where is Hillary's?

If she were a financial phenomenon that (financial creationism?) turned a $1,000 initial investment into $100,000 (9,900% return!), she would have shouted it from the tallest building in Little Rock. It was a bribe unless proven otherwise with account transcripts and comparisons to actual, market price movements.

Two things holding down economic growth are high taxes and too many regulations.

Hillary promises to spend $1 trillion more on government public works ("shovel-ready" didn't work for Obama) programs, free day care and college education, and expanded entitlements. Plus, pay your college loans. She threatens to raise investment and personal income tax rates (paid by many small businesses) to finance all of it.

One of the thinnest books that hasn't been published. "Hillary's Lifetime Achievements."

In Trump we trust.

Which would be less appealing, a nude photo of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? If we had both, it would be grist for the anti-sex porn division of Grimbledon Down.

Well, at least if such a picture of Trump existed, we would be able to measure just how much manly manliness he brings to the table. So to speak, unless one thinks of Trump being like LBJ - 'As for waving around his cock (a little extension of him that he had affectionately nicknamed "Jumbo"), he was said to piss in public whenever he felt like it, and if anyone dared confront him, he would whip his dick around and challenge the poor sap with, "Have you seen anything bigger than this?"

No wonder his wife was cool with it.' http://www.cracked.com/article_18945_6-presidential-secrets-your-history-teacher-didnt-mention.html

Lewis Amselem remarked that his colleagues in the Foreign Service who'd been posted to the 3d world understood the Whitewater scandal immediately: the function of the 1st lady is to launder the bribes.

I thought the real point was how good International Paper was at disguising its bribes, including being able to reclaim the property, if I recall from the Post reporting decades ago.

A quick review from back when Sanders was still seen as an alternative to those familiar in accomodating America's corporate masters -
'And where did the land come from? Its previous owner-of-record was a partnership, 101 River Development, whose role appears to be strictly that of a conduit. 101 River Development held the property for only three days, and folded its tent within a couple of weeks of the sale. The previous owner had been a group of local businessmen. And prior to them, the last owner had been International Paper, Arkansas’s largest landholder–a $16 billion a year timber giant with 7 million acres of land across the United States, and 800,000 acres in Arkansas. It had logged off the best timber on the site and then sold the riverfront acres cheap to the local partnership of Arkansas bankers and businessmen.

How long the local partners held the land, or the terms on which it passed from IP to them to 101 River Development to the Clintons and McDougals, is unclear. But it is evident that the Whitewater sale came at a time when the timber giant was holding a keen ear to the pronouncements of candidate Clinton.' http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/11/paper-trails-big-timber-the-clintons-and-the-origins-of-the-whitewater-scandal/

No need to go to the 3rd world to see how corporate America works, after all. Ideologues might have their various problems with the Clintons, but corporate America is likely much more confident in the art of dealing with the Clintons than trying to make an art out of dealing with with Trump.

You just made your case for the Green Party candidate: what's-her-name.

I'll spell it out for you, o product of the education apocalypse. The elites, corporations, GOP establishment (no different than Democrats) et al oppose Trump because they do not think that they can buy him or, for that matter, what's-her-name.

FYI the White Water scandal was a small example of the widespread political corruption that helped run up the S&L Crisis taxpayer losses to nearly half a trillion dollars. It really was so much about big, bad lumber companies' sales of excess land assets.

'oppose Trump because they do not think that they can buy him '

This is truly hilarious. They quite likely oppose Trump because they know, presumably pretty close to the nearest dollar, how much his bluster measures up compared to reality.

If Trump were Texan, we would be talking about the size of his hat, instead of his hands.

Maybe Hillary made a shady $100,000 over 30 years ago, and maybe Trump would order war crimes .. both sides do it, elect Trump.

Trump is manifestly unqualified for office, so I guess we should just ignore Clinton's flagrant ethical shortcomings and let her run rampant in the White House.

Recognizing why Hillary is merely the lesser of two evils still involves reminding people of her evils.

Hilligula's manifest qualifications would be 8 years in the U.S. Senate wherein she sponsored not one piece of minimally consequential legislation an 4 years as Secretary of State with regard to which she has repeated bouts of Sgt. Schultz-like perspicacity.

We certainly have a bad choice this year, but it seems that an increasing number this week are making the bad choice. There is rising support for the manifestly unqualified Trump. Why? It could be that partisanship always rises to the top. It could be that busy folk glean from the news that "both sides do it."

It could be that madness is broad in the land ("Hilligula").

Horse race journalism and party polarization are going to keep Trump closer than he would have been in, say, 1984 (he'll still crack 100 Electoral Votes, easily), but once we recognize the context that a 55/45 win is an absolute blowout in the modern environment, it becomes a bit more clear that Clinton is going to win comfortably.

I would have thought the same until this past week or so, she's really struggling now. Still the favorite, but it will be close and no longer obvious who will win.

Let's be both honest and frank here. It is possible that the Clintons did well while doing good. In some years that might make them the worse choice.

Hell, I voted for George H. Bush and Robert J. Dole both over the Other Clinton. That should count for something as you digest my words.

But this is not a normal year. This year, this George H. Bush and Robert J. Dole voter will vote for Hillary R. Clinton, because seriousness and morality matter.

Using a private server and deleting emails isn't "doing good."

You people are morally bankrupt.

I understand people need to rationalize why they will vote against Trump, but you don't need to make Hillary out to be a good person.

I bet you have some emails in your possession right now. Does that make you immoral?

There are some frankly stupid people in the world who repeat "33,000 emails" like that is a measure of evil. Presumably 32,000 wouild be less evil?

I have 15,000 emails and I am awesome.

Rationalize?

Are you serious?

Trump is an ignorant blowhard, a liar, a bully, and a bigot. He very likely is a much, much worse businessman than he claims to be. Of course the tax returns would provide a clue. He is also a fraudster - see Trump U. - and very possibly guilty of bribery of the FL AG.

I don't need to "rationalize" opposing him. His election would be a global catastrophe.

I think everyone is forced to rationalize to some extent if they plan to vote in this election.

Maybe rationalize isn't the right word. I merely meant that you're having to choose between two people with lots of bad aspects to them.

You have to choose which you weigh more than the other, so it ends up being "rationalization" in many cases.

I agree with everything you wrote about Trump, except perhaps the global catastrophe part: the world seems to go on even with poor presidential leadership and bad decisions.

The problem is Hillary is not any better. She's a liar. She's dirty and takes bribes. She's prone to start military actions.

You guys can bluster all you want about Trump, Trump, Trump, and I'm with you, but that does not make Hillary Clinton a better choice. It makes Gary Johnson a better choice.

and I may be rationalizing about Johnson being the better choice!

When I used this word, its not pejorative...its just means when presented with bad choices, where you have to take one...well, you may have to convince yourself a bit.

I am a Ford-Reagan-Bush-Dole-Bush voter; you'd be hard pressed to find a more reliable Republican. And I'm voting for Hillary unless my state looks like an absolute blowout, in which case I'd consider Johnson. Seriousness and intelligence matter; morality, not so much, or I couldn't pull the lever for Hillary.

I've been thinking about this question recently. I think for a Cowen blog post that makes sense. But I'm not sure I agree with respect to national media. They should be running scandal stories roughly proportional to the behavior of the candidates. Which as far as I can tell, means we should be hearing very little about Clinton.

I plan to vote for Johnson and sleep soundly regardless of which damn fool choice my fellow citizens make, but the best case I can make for Trump as the lesser evil is that it would set an extremely bad precedent and create a truly *terrible* set of incentives for someone with Hillary's combination of mendacity, corruption, and incompetence to be able win.

The dude got in a Twitter fight with the President of Mexico, changed his policy because a Tweet bothered him.

If you can't see that as a different kind, scale of danger, I don't know how you are even processing this stuff.

Trump is a buffoon, no doubt, and I certainly won't vote for him. But I'm not sure he really scares me more. Putting aside all the corruption and lies, Hillary was a *terrible* Secretary of State. Has Trump come up with anything dumber than Putin's 'reset' button'? Much worse, she was a key figure in creating the disasters in Libya and Syria. You think she's a 'safe' option to be guiding U.S. foreign policy?

You have no concept of geopolitical risk.

That is the only way to explain your belief that any one, or two, Americans were "key figures in creating the disasters in Libya and Syria."

Who could even put forward that narrative? It's nuts. It shows no knowledge of the internal disintegration, tensions, in either country.

In each case there was a devil's choice. Support Gaddafi or support Europe. Support al-Assad or support rebels, none of which are really our friends.

Idiot critics think that "a strong leader" would magic a solution to those, but each one was, and is a lesser evil, less risk choice.

Would you have supported Gaddafi and al-Assad, because if not you would end up in the same place.

"In each case there was a devil’s choice. Support Gaddafi or support Europe. Support al-Assad or support rebels, none of which are really our friends."

Consider the possibility that *we* aren't required to intervene and take sides in every conflict. And the only thing missing here is the Mao suit and little finger in the corner of her mouth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

You just reversed your whole argument.

If your game is just to annoy the thoughtful maybe you should rethink civic responsibility.

"You just reversed your whole argument."

In what way? Instead of knowing when to stay out of intractable conflicts in the Mideast (and showing no understanding that U.S. involvement could easily make things worse--as it, in fact, has), Hillary pushed hard for intervention, helping to create the current fiasco. And don't forget that taking down Gaddafi -- after he voluntarily gave up his nuclear weapons program -- has created an incentive structure where no dictator or rogue regime will ever make *that* mistake again:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/1013/Nuclear-lesson-from-Libya-Don-t-be-like-Qaddafi.-Be-like-Kim

The bottom line is that I do not find the prospect of having Hillary in charge of U.S. foreign policy in any way reassuring.

You seem to be leaving out a pretty important alternative: not intervening. In Libya, we could have simply stayed out of it. In Syria, we could have done the same. (We've intervened some there, but haven't s It is permissible for wars, civil wars, and other upheavals to twke place somewhere on thr Earth, without American bombs falling on one side or another, or American special forces types advising one side or another.

Trump's comment along those lines was chilling, but most of the impact comes from knowing that we've committed war crimes in the last 15-20 years and made sure nobody above the rank of corporal actually saw any consequences for them. It is 100% plausible that Trump could order war crimes committed, and he and his underlings would never face any consequences, from future Republican or Democratic administrations.

Oh, also apply the rule that no matter how many disqualifying things Trump may say or do, just say the magic words "emails, emails, emails" and snap your fingers twice.

It isn't that politicians are angels. It is that they aren't, and can the institutions of government keep a lid on their venality.

The constitution was designed to rein in guys like Trump. It has proven to be utterly useless when confronting corruption.

It takes the electorate to stop corruption, and it looks like they won't this time.

There is no precedent for electing "a guy like Trump," certainly not in the last century.

My fear is that there are enough craven henchmen in waiting that they will take a word, a hint, and run with it. "Who will rid me of this priest?"

Oh nonsense. Who was that wrestler guy in Minnesota? The actor in California? In BC we had Vander Zalm, a tulip saleman who would have media following him in crowds. Got elected, eventually lost the office for doing business from the Premier's office. He came after both parties were in disarray, one side from severe cuts to government, the other to fecklessness. There was a political realignment during his time in office, and both sides of the political divide smartened up, started representing their constituents instead of who knows who, and we have had pretty good government ever since.

If Trump is elected all the other branches of government will carry out their oath to the constitution far more faithfully than if Clinton is elected. He has no connections, no friends, no power. He will be harmless. And maybe move the countries best and brightest out of shame to smarten up and stop being the blithering assholes that they have come to be.

Governors do not launch military actions on their words, or hints.

(And Schwarzenegger was an underrated pragmatist.)

Maybe derek was referring to the other actor from California? The one who got elected president?

After, y'know, serving as governor of California.

As opposed to Trump, whose political resume remains thinner than my Senate internship during law school.

If elected, Trump is going to have to put in some real effort to do as much damage to the country as Lincoln did and everybody seems to worship the memory of that monster.

@chuck: everybody is pretty stupid, amirite? Why they don't see things your way is a huge mystery.

What I admire the most in this story is Clinton's restraint. Most people who get lucky and make a profit of 10,000% on their very first bet ever, don't have the willpower to stop while they are ahead.

Heh. If we could find anyone else who made a profit of 10,000% on their very first bet ever...

Years ago the WSJ published an investigation by the retired head of the IRS division investigating fraud & he concluded it was a money laundering scheme to hide bribes to the Clintons. The scheme works by the cattle trader buying futures both up & down for the given date & then retroactively giving the winner to Clinton & the loser to the source of the bribes (presumably a large Arkansas Chicken Co). To pull this off one needed a crooked futures dealer & the one Clinton used had done similar scams in the past. The scheme was not new at the time but was primarily used by people with 2 accounts- one a retirement account & the other an investment account- again one would purchase both "up"& "down"cattle futures and the dealer would assign the "winning" trade to your tax free retirement account & the loser to your standard account & you would claim a loss for tax purposes. The IRS became suspicious when it seems everyone with 2 accounts would make money in their tax free account & lose money in their personal account. The reason Hilliary made exactly $100K was that was the amount of the bribe-so she quit investing at that point despite her remarkable "".skill

Thanks, very interesting.

No support in facts for your claim. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

Did you actually read the link you posted to?

"In commodities futures trading, an account that falls below the "maintenance margin" typically triggers a "margin call," where the trader must put up sufficient cash to cover the contracts. Although Hillary Rodham Clinton's account was under-margined for nearly all of July 1979, no margin calls were made, no additional cash was put up, and she eventually reaped a $60,000 profit."

Hillary Clinton is so obviously corrupt.

Yes I did, which means you did not understand what you read. The maintenance margin requirement was the responsibility of the the broker to enforce, and he did not. As money increased, more contracts were placed.

Let me guess. You never took a finance course.

"...was the responsibility of the the broker to enforce, and he did not. "

I believe that is evidence of political favoritism.

"Let me guess. You never took a finance course."

My Degree in Finance says otherwise. So, your guess seems to be very poor.

Then you should have known better.

"Then you should have known better."

Known what better? It's clear from the article that Hillary Clinton was below the margin call. Not for a few hours, or even for a long weekend, but for nearly a month. A reasonable person would regard that as highly irregular behavior and an indicator of favoritism.

From the article:

"A close examination of her individual trades underscores Blair's pivotal role. It also shows that Robert L. "Red" Bone, who ran the Springdale, Ark., office of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), allowed Clinton to initiate and maintain many trading positions – besides the first – when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them.

Why would Bone do so? Bone could not be reached for comment, but Blair said he thought he knew why. "I was a very good customer," he said, noting he paid Bone $800,000 in commissions over the years. "They weren't going to hassle me. If I brought them somebody, they weren't going to hassle them."

Besides, he added, Bone would not worry if he agreed with his clients' bet on which way the price of a given contract would go.

Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client. At the time of many of the trades, Bill Clinton was governor."

If you meant to defend Hillary Clinton, this was a poor choice of a link.

JW, You really did not read it did you.

She didn't do the trading. Someone else did. Apparently you knew this because you had the audacity to quote the very sentence the refers to Blair's trading and the person who allowed the account to initiate and maintain the trades.

It was the responsibility of the broker to enforce the margin limits. That didn't make it her problem, but the person who was doing the trades in the account and the broker who allowed the trades to be maintained.

Bill, you aren't helping with the pedantry. Obviously Clinton didn't 'do' much of anything here. She gave some money to some people that wanted to get her a lot more back, and they did by treating her special. I don't think this is that big of a deal regarding her fitness for president, especially compared to the other guy who's equally corrupt. But let's not pretend she's not shady.

"JW, You really did not read it did you.

She didn’t do the trading. Someone else did."

Hillary Clinton made all the trading decisions by herself.

Pedantry: "excessive concern with minor details and rules."

I plead guilty, particularly when it proves another persons innocence.

Lots of support that the whole thing was fishy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436066/hillary-clinton-cattle-futures-windfall

1 in 31trillion chance that these trades were legitmate. The left's professed dedication to science is a lie, and Bill is a perfect example. Could you imagine what Bill and the left would be saying if there was a 34,999,999,9999,999/35,000,000,000,000 probability of global warming raising temperature 2 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years? What a liar.

30.999...t/31t. Oops

Did you read the comment of the U of Chicago finance professor to Melamed's report.

99.9999999 percent chance you did not.

The chance that Hillary Clinton who knows nothing about cattle or trading or futures made tends or hundreds of trades with 90% accuracy over the course of a year so is similar to the chance that I'll be struck by lightning 3 times tonight.

Thomas, You are correct. Hillary did nothing. Your statement also shows that the trader and the broker did. Yet, the Melamed report of their activities did not show illegality.

Your chance of finally figuring this out was well less than 90%, but you did it anyway. Sometime take some time and read the materials I cited to, all of which were in the public domain at the time. This is old. This is closed. The reason this went nowhere at the time--when there was every incentive for the right wing to pursue it--was that there was no there there, as there was nothing with Whitewater either.

All you remember is the smoke of the fog machine, and you forgot that there was no there there. Even though they tried. They failed.

The Clintons - all of them - are loathsome. But the alternative in this election is so repugnant - and such an ignoramus - that he makes the loathsome Clintons the only choice. Why Cowen feels like he must be a good soldier in this is beyond me: we survived the "dire situation" of the first Clinton administration.

Your first seven words are perfect, but the rest is garbage.

There are 4 people running in this election, Spanky. You have a very weak mind if you're going to vote for one that you find "loathesome."

And before you give me that "wasted vote" crap, get a clue. Your vote is going to have zero effect on the outcome of this election. That is an ironclad guarantee. The only way you can waste your vote is to give it to someone you find loathsome.

Pick your favorite of the 4. Hell, write someone in -- that is most likely what I am going to do.

Grow a spine. Use the one vote you have.

If we're including candidates who don't even clear the margin of error, it's a lot more than 4 people running.

"Grow a spine. Use the one vote you have." Why? His "vote is going to have zero effect on the outcome of this election" anyway. If everyone who doesn't like Clinton but hates Trump does so, well, those votes would have collectivelly a big effect and we would be back to "wasted votes" issue. "Pick your favorite of the 4." Why? Because the two other guys showed up? Why not stay at home and send an abstention message?

An abstention message contains very little information. Are you just apathetic and uninformed? What option would you have preferred? No vote--no signal. Vote for a 3rd party candidate and at least the main parties know where to look for your vote next time.

Point taken, but I differ.
"Are you just apathetic and uninformed?"

Disgruntled. And do uninformed voters ever abstain?

"Vote for a 3rd party candidate and at least the main parties know where to look for your vote next time."

In a garbage can? Evidently it would be much less of an issue if the USA had a rational model of presidential elections with a two-round system.

It has nothing to do with "spine." Under the U.S. Constitution, a candidate needs to win a majority of electoral votes to become President. Furthermore, almost all states use a first-past-the-post statewide election in which the person who gets the most votes wins all of the state's electoral votes. This combination is devastating to the chances of any third-party candidate. A divided opposition can and has handed an election to someone who does not have the support of the majority. Voting for third-party candidates is generally pointless and is downright foolish and immature for anyone who lives in a swing state.

Thanks for the serious person opinion, but you are wrong. This is like a game with multiple iterations. If you show the establishment that they will never be punished then you will get a worse deal on average over all iterations. If you were President Obama, you could call this a red line in the sand. But, you'd have to be a non-coward to act, which is a problem because serious thinkers are actually precautionary principle worshipping cowards.

"Voting for third-party candidates is generally pointless and is downright foolish and immature for anyone who lives in a swing state."

It's innumerate for anyone to think his or her vote will make the difference in a presidential contest in a swing state.

The probability a single vote will matter is small but non-zero and to claim otherwise is what is "innumerate." The 2000 election came down to the decisions (arising out of some combination of negligence and deliberate action) of fewer than 800 residents of Florida.

It's innumerate to vote at all (for president). But aggregates matter, as does civic responsibility.

"The probability a single vote will matter is small but non-zero and to claim otherwise is what is 'innumerate.'”

No one claimed otherwise. You simply apparently don't read very well. There is less than one chance in a million that any "swing" state in this election will be decided by a single vote. And even longer odds that the "swing" state that is decided by one vote will be the difference in the presidential election.

RE:
>>Please do note I regard it as my first priority to try to understand and also explain the (rather dire) situation we are in, rather than to put maximum thumb weight on the outcome I would most like to see happen.<<

The outcome I would most like to see happen: Just before the first debate, Trump and Hillary's campaign jets accidentally collide in midair.

The many lost souls would be a downside. But the upside, a Kaine, Pence (or Johnson?!?) presidency, would be orders of magnitude better.

Sounds like the sort of thing that requires Snake Plissken and his glider piloting skills.

The evidence indicates that trump is doing this for publicity. Ultimately Pence will be running things.

He is by far the most competent of the three.

I would like to remind you of a time, not that long ago, when people questioned whether George W. Bush was the brightest or the most ready of the bunch. Relax they said, Cheney will be running things.

It if frankly astounding to me that we can repeat that fantasy a mere 16 years later. That we can repeat it as Republicans themselves come to admit that perhaps that was a disastrous reign.

You know what will happen if Trump is elected, and if Pence starts to "run things." It will harm Trump's ego, and we know what happens after that. Trump will do something abrupt and ill-considered to remind everyone that HE is President, and not Mike Pence.

Anon is very anxious. If he/she were confident of a HRC victory, he would chuckle at this post and scroll to the next. Instead he feels he must destroy every molecule he sniffs of Trump support, as though the election will be decided in the comments section of MR.

Just one comment above I remind of George W. Bush, and the recent acceptance that his voluntary war in Iraq was a grave error.

How many people died?

But, lets laugh again. After all the important thing is that it feels like your side is winning. Just like it did when you elected George W. Bush.

I agree that the Iraq War was a catastrophic mistake, and the biggest reason way Bush was a poor President. Unlike the majority of Americans, I thought so at the time. It definitely felt like a hustle, a campaign of coordinated fear-mongering over yellow cake and other sketchy evidence.

The linking of Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden was ridiculous. Those guys hated each other.

I read somewhere that on September 12, 2001, Paul Wolfowitz was in Bush's ear whispering sweet nothings about Iraq. The neoconservative movement was itching for a fight and willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen.

Today, the neoconservatives are the larges bloc of #NeverTrump Republicans. Many (like Wolfowitz) have endorsed Clinton (who, recall, voted in favor of the Iraq War.)

There are good reasons to oppose Trump, but I don't think "he's a warmonger" is one of them.

As someone who voted for the senior Bush and Dole, but not the younger, I think my record is good, and non-partisan.

I can't comprehend how you think a guy already in a fight with Mexico is a safer bet than a successful Sec of State.

How do you resolve Mexico WILL pay? I see no constitutional way.

I thought we were talking about wars and dead people. Military adventurers in the Pentagon and elsewhere prefer Hillary.

As to the Mexico thing, Trump did not change policy on a dime. He said two different things to two different audiences. Politics 101. A year ago, I thought Trump was refreshing in contrast to the raft of lawyer/politicians with they're oh so carefully worded statements designed to conceal more than they reveal and above all avoid giving offense to voters. But lately, Trump has turned into a cartoonish, outsized version of these same politicians; diplomatic when necessary, shoveling red meat in other venues. As if to say: "You call that pandering? I'll show you some real pandering."

Not a Trump fan. He's unpredictable with a petty vindictive streak. The greater danger, IMO, is his using the office to settle personal scores domestically, not embroil us in a war. On foreign policy, the greater danger is isolationism; that's why the neocons hate him.

Inside reports are that yes, he changed his speech in response to a Tweet.

And yes that is the kind of emotional reaction that leads to leaders going to war. It is too often personal.

And yeah, if Trump keeps ramping up we could see border clashes with Mexico. It fits his personality, and the corner he has backed himself into.

that’s why the neocons hate him.

If you're talking about the Podhoretz circle, I'll wager you're wrong. People like Tamar Jacoby have an emotional commitment to open borders ("Ellis Island Schmaltz" in the words of Mr. Sailer) and affluent people are the constituency for contemporary cosmopolitanism (see Jennifer Rubin). For this crew, the sort of people who find Trump motivating are alien and scarcely worthy of much more than supercilious dismissal courtesy Jonathan Tobin.

A larger than normal percentage of comment section Hillary fanatics are on the campaign payroll.

This year, of all years, you should suspect that voters are not always fans.

In fact your lack of discernment worries me.

The Dallas Morning News is a solid Republican paper:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160906-donald-trump-is-no-republican.ece

anon, two comments up you call Clinton "a successful Sec of State" where all evidence shows the contrary. Before that you tell Slocum, who's a pretty level headed commenter, "If your game is just to annoy the thoughtful maybe you should rethink civic responsibility."

You need to rethink your positions. You come off a bigger buffoon than Trump ever has been. Your argumentative style is somewhere between throw shit everywhere and see what sticks to word salad. The last think you should consider yourself to be is thoughtful.

The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce...

My guess (and it is truly and only a guess, not even a hypothesis) is that "the media" (if one noun can encompass such a vast baggy monster) feels that it UNDER-reported the negatives on Trump for many months (drunk on the wondrously entertaining free grist he delivered to their mill) and maybe sees its only way to balance that sin is to UNDER-report same on Clinton? Beats me. Yes, yes, I know two wrongs do not make a right.

Understand the situation?

Argentina. Evita Peron.

In a terrible way the best rise to the top. This is the best the country can offer. A slippery real estate agent and a corrupt wife of a former politician. Who can share the spoils with me and not the other guy. A zero sum game.

I read an argentine who described the dinner conversations where they would discuss who would be best dead. How prevalent are these conversations in the US? I heard an experienced police officer describing his job as enforcing the law by including killing those who don't comply. We had swat teams in Wisconsin showing up at political opponents homes. This is both sides, just different targets.

A month ago I read how Baltimore was purposely hiring police officers trained in other states. That brought to mind the Spanish policing technique under Franco where their police would be assigned anywhere but their home town to prevent the human ties from limiting their brutality.

Just wait to see what happens when the Federal government can't borrow to buy off restive populations.

Detroit is a possibility and should scare the dickens out of anyone in the US. There isn't anywhere to run away to anymore.

Detroit is a possibility and should scare the dickens out of anyone in the US. There isn’t anywhere to run away to anymore.

No it is not. Detroit is its own place, and it's like it is due to extraordinary neglect.

The deficit is 3.5% of gdp. Not great, but someone more capable that the present incumbent can work with Congress to whittle that down. If they had any discipline and could balance the budget over the course of a business cycle (they do not), they could work it so the outstanding debt falls to 40% of gdp within 40 years.

Detroit got to where it was due to extraordinary *exit*. In 1950 there were 1.5 million white people living in the city. In 2010 there were 50,000. Which means that over the course of 60 years, Detroit lost 97% of its white population. No other American city comes close. It's not really an exaggeration to say that what happened to Detroit was ALL the white people (who had most of the money) left.

Detroit had a lot of help over the mid-century decades in arriving at the current sorry state. Here is a rough discussion.

Henry Ford needed cheap, non-union workers, after his strike experiences in the 1930s.
The War Production Board needed WWII armaments.
The draft reduced the local workforce.
That necessitated the great migration from the Mississippi Delta and elsewhere in the south to northern industrial cities.
The Quakers and others pursued some social engineering projects.
One result: Detroit parishes got split up, whites fled to the suburbs, houses were burned by the score (check references to Devil's Night).

The city was in satisfactory condition as late as 1960. The exodus was in part a response to economic prosperity (people seeking more spacious accommodation) and in part a response to crime. Jerome Cavanaugh's election in 1962 exacerbated matters, because he was committed to an otiose response to social pathology (which was, to be sure, modal at that time among big city mayors). Efforts to contain the escalation of disorder under his successor Roman Gribbs were scrapped immediately by Coleman Young upon taking office. The whole metropolis was already suffering from unfortunate medium-term economic difficulties. Co-incident with that, Young and his confederates trashed the place, allowing crime to run unabated. Young was a red-haze union official. He understood businesses as objects you shakedown. You had two problems: just the wrong man was present to take over the mayor's chair; and the matrix in which he operated provided no incentive to improve performance. As the more capable sort among the black electorate headed to the suburbs, the quality of that matrix continued to decline. Walter Russell Mead has called Detroit's municipal pols 'a pack of velociraptors'. Its voters are people who put up with velociraptors.

You could fix Detroit, but you'd need to move crucial services to a metropolitan authority and you'd need to put the municipal government under an indefinite trusteeship. Pigs won't fly.

btw. 1.5 million was the total population in 1950, not the white population.

In a terrible way the best rise to the top.

No, the most capable within the rules of the tournament rise to the top. In part, this problem is due to a secular decline in the quality of the elites, in part due to bad screens and competitive pressures. Compare Hilligula to the usually harmless Theresa May.

Is it the elites that have declined in quality, or just those willing to subject themselves to the sadomasochism of electoral politics?

I am a native of the DC area and have been deeply interested in policy and politics my entire life, but no amount of money or ego-stroking could convince me to run for office when I can get more power more quickly operating through the administrative state.

People in general have declined in quality.

Actually, I think most legislators are treated congenially by the media, and are generally not under threat from the political opposition. Judges are ignored unless they do something grossly obnoxious. Executives and U.S. Senators have a difficult time depending.

His point, which I would think you'd agree with, is that a big part of the reason presidential candidate quality has been on the decline is the insane gauntlet of media attention, money raising, and sheer bloody stamina required to campaign for 2 years. I'm certain the best among us don't have any intention of going on that hellish ride, and so we end up with the duo we have today.

I have no idea how to fix the system within Constitutional limits. For example, requiring campaigns to last only 3-4 months as in the UK would be a great start but violates the First Amendment.

I have sometimes argued that the current system at least proves executive skills, anyone who can run and win a modern presidential campaign at least shows they can run something big and expensive and complicated. But I'd prefer better candidates.

I'd argue that people haven't declined, but the massive gap in returns from the private sector and elected officialdom make it nearly impossible to get the brightest into office. Revered forebears never had to make such a choice. How many of "great and serious men" of the past wouldn't be sitting in an executive suite today?

Please do note I regard it as my first priority to try to understand and also explain the (rather dire) situation we are in, rather than to put maximum thumb weight on the outcome I would most like to see happen.

Comes the word from Olympus.

It's called paraleipsis.

Your Link Now Deleted

I see my decision to take a month away from reading political commentary was a good one, and that all remains the same.

Both Parties are corrupt garbage and should be destroyed. Anyone who remains a member of either Party is a part of the problem. As is anyone who votes for a lesser of what they consider to be two terrible evils. Your vote for a lesser evil because you feel you need to choose from one of the two just perpetuates this corrupt duopoly.

I guess Tyler missed other parts of the Wiki article:

"After the Rodham trading matter became public, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange, was brought in by request of the White House to review the trading records. On April 11, 1994, he said that the whole matter was "a tempest in a teapot" and that while her brokers had not required her to provide typical margin cushions, she had not knowingly benefited.[10] On May 26, 1994, after the new records concerning the larger Blair trades came to light, he said "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions."[14] But as to the question of whether she had been allocated profits from larger block trades, he said of the new accounting, "It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't,"[20] an assessment of uncertainty shared by Merton Miller, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.[20]

Clinton responses[edit]
Hillary Clinton's defenders, including White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, maintained throughout that she had made her own decisions, that her own money was constantly at risk, and that she made both winning and losing trades throughout the ten months.[21] Regarding suggestions that Blair had favored Clinton so that Tyson Foods could gain influence with Governor Clinton, they pointed out that Tyson had, in fact, later opposed Clinton during his 1980 re-election bid, an observation the First Lady had also made at her news conference.[12][21]

Clinton's defenders also stressed that Blair and others stayed in the market longer than Rodham and lost a good amount of what they had earlier made later that summer and fall, showing that the risk was real.[4] Indeed, some reports had Blair losing $15 million[19] and Bone was reported as bankrupt.[7]"

I guess Tyler missed other parts of the Wiki article:

No, you're a sucker and he's not.

Art,

Media Matters did a review of this when it was raised as a smear effort of Fox News, and cited the materials that Tyler hid from his readers.

For those who do appreciate others reviews, like those of Media Matters, and for more detail on this, here is the link to the Media Matters piece (more than I can post):
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/30/fox-turns-to-20-year-old-debunked-conspiracy-th/195136

Media Matters did a review of this

LOL

The whole point of laundering a bribe through a financial scheme like this, rather than handing over a briefcase of cash, is to avoid any smoking gun proof of criminality (especially on the part of the recipient). And there were clever lawyers on both sides of the transaction. The relevant points are, and only are, that 1) Rodham indisputably got special treatment on margin calls, and 2) she indisputably would have lost money, rather than made a huge windfall, without that special treatment. Given the structuring, no other evidence of a bribe could exist without either someone being stupid enough to actually write down something like "This is a bribe". We have 100% of the evidence one would expect if it were a payoff in exchange for influence, and a case of completely unexplained favoritism if it wasn't.

Dear Lunatic,

At the time, the appropriate regulators were in existence; there wasn't a basis. Furthermore, Melamed, a former head to the Exchange, looked at it and gave a public report, finding nothing after reviewing all the relevant records. Evidently you do not like that.

I have this conspiracy theory of a vast right wing conspiracy directed at the Clintons....that probably has more credibility than actual trading records and files that are reviewed by outsiders or by closed investigations finding nothing ... but, of course, that right wing conspiracy theory is speculation, and this is an election year.

It's inconceivable that HRC just started trading cattle futures out of nowhere and made a 10000% return in a few months by chance. That is inconceivable, so we know it was something else. We also know that the broker can easily just say that she placed the trades and deliberately win some-lose some or whatever he wants to do to make it look legit. That's indisputable. Since we know 100% for sure it's not the first possibility (random, extremely brief cattle futures genius), the conclusion is pretty inescapable even if not provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

During the same period, and to this day, others have made similar returns in commodities markets. See the WAPO links above and below.

It's not inconceivable to Bill. He has an impenetrable wall of gullibility (when it suits his purposes).

in which you prove Krugman's point ...

Yeah, buying into it. Way to go, Tyler -- such good faith.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

1 in 31 trillion? With fat tails, I doubt that.

This is the least credible part of the whole story. In a zero sum game with flexible leverage it should be possible to generate a 1-100 shot with a 100x payoff. I don't know if that is an argument regarding the specific kind of trades Clinton made, but of course any course of several trades is going to have a vanishingly small chance of generating the exact return it does. That doesn't mean anything about its plausibility.

90% or so of tens or hundreds of a priori coinflips landing how Hillary calls them... 45 in a row is 1/35T probability.

The reason no one cares about Hillary's trading is that since the Citizens United decision it is not even be illegal for corporations to buy influence and public choice economist and Nixon have convinced most people that all politicians if not actually are potentially corrupt. If it were a Republican instead of Hillary everyone would switch sides just as they do about not being qualified etc.

The reason no one cares about Hillary’s trading is that since the Citizens United decision it is not even be illegal for corporations to buy influence

Joan thinks the New York Times Company is an unincorporated partnership.

I trade commodities . The 1 in 31 trillion number is about right for a novice investor. Interestingly she never dipped below her previous day's high water mark. That has probably never been done before or after by any professional commodities trader ever.

Conclusion by me the fix was in and the target was $100,000 to Hilary.

Thanks for bringing this discussion back to the real world and once again proving the value of Nobel-Prize-winning economists.

What was the minimum to hold a position back in 1978? This Trib article says $1200. She didn't have enough to trade and she would have lost her position with one moderate down day early on.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-04-02/business/9404020160_1_cattle-futures-merc-spokesman-trading

The broker did not enforce the limits, which you would know if you knew the facts of the case. As to the size of the gain, the Wapo reported: "While Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades -- those of 50 contracts or more. Clinton traded positions of 50 or more contracts only three times." Here is the Wapo story with the data: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm

That seems totally irrelevant. She started with $1,000. Did anyone else make a profit of more than 10,000% in the same period of time?

Yes, if you care to read the materials. The fortunate decision was to stop, whereas the other party continued and made subsequent losses. Cliff, the other point you seem to miss, other than the stoppage point, is that once you make money on some contracts...giving you a base...just a few good contracts or rounds could account for the gains. It is not as if $1000 contract returned 10,000%. It was several, successive contracts over longer periods, so your 10000 percent comment doesn't make sense, unless you are trying to mislead.

"The fortunate decision was to stop, whereas the other party continued and made subsequent losses."

Yes, how very "fortunate." Surely not suspicious.

Imagine I walk into a casino, put $50 on 00, and hit. I walk out. The next day I walk in, money on 00, hit, walk out. The same thing happens the next day, and the next day, and the next day. Under Bill's approach, there's nothing even slightly unusual about this turn of events because it happened over six different days, not on six consecutive spins.

Yes, the broker didn't enforce the limits. That isn't evidence of the innocence of the scheme, that's the smoking gun. That is what reveals that this wasn't Rodham playing the markets like anyone else, but a cover for funneling money to her.

Which any and every reasonable person can see. Bill is not that person. If OTOH the person who performed this unbelievable f eat were a Repub, Bill would be at the head of the group calling for that person's head.

The end result is the opposite of what Bill seeks. Neither he nor H. Clinton have any credibility at all.

Given who George Mason gives tenure to, citing a Wikipedia article seems about right.

That isn't really fair to the wikipedia using masses, particularly as wikipedia has achieved a sort of broadly non-partisan cast in most people's eyes.

And wikipedia is no worse than short videos, of the sort provided by one of the leading Internet only institutions of economics education. The first rule in media sducess is to know your audience. Only a cynic would then say the next rule is to pander mercilessly.

1) If a blogger *claims* that his priority is "to try to understand and also explain" and yet articulates NOTHING towards that, I ask myself what his objective actually is, and why he is lying about it. Or perhaps he just has ADHD 2) It isn't clear to me why a long straddle, for instance, would make HRC "corrupt", nor why her use of expert advice (which I assume she had, probably some with "insider" knowledge) would act as a count against her in the election. We SHOULD on the other hand recall her ginormous blundering about with the health care reform Bill wanted, as well as her (probable) noncooperation in "locating" the missing records - y'all remember that? Although to be fair, there is/was so much "I won't accept a woman, especially a wife riding on her spouse's coattails, as any kind of a leader", that I doubt whether anyone could have succeeded where she failed so miserably.

"Please do note I regard it as my first priority to try to understand and also explain the (rather dire) situation we are in"

Keep trying. You'll get there eventually.

Just vote for Johnson/Weld and hope for the best.

Hillary voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and if news reports are to be believed, even after seeing chaos that ensued after the war in Iraq, she pushed for arming rebels in Syria, pressuring Egypt's Government to give way and bombing of Libya. She is also a drug warrior, late to support allowing the states to legalize marijuana.

But let's hope that she learned a couple of lessons and will get our military out of the middle east and legalize drugs.

Ether I am ignorant or our politicians are crazy.

Will we EVER get to the bottom of this?

New topic Tyler!

The MR masses are restless~!~

Clearing firms can move trades to and from favored and disfavored client accounts with their master account to balance the exchange's ledger.

While it is possible they allocated winning trades to HRC's account, I would bet that HRC's clearing firm was moving her losers onto their books and absorbing her losers. When a clearing firm moves a trade off a client's books, it is not reflected on the client statement as having ever occurred.

This explains most of the media's Clinton coverage here.

Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

I will also add that a firm could conceivably have no risk by incorporating the losers into their own market neutral positioning to manage the firm's directional risk. In effect, the HRC account would look like a sub-account of the f Rm's proprietary trading account even though it was legally HRC's.

This is a rather sophisticated way to send money to a political soldier, but it gets the job done!

Forget wikipedia, here are two Post articles, to compare and contrast - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-denies-he-talked-with-florida-attorney-general-about-donation/2016/09/05/e15d62e0-73b8-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html (though he did write a personal check) and https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clintons-nearly-18-million-job-as-honorary-chancellor-of-a-for-profit-college/2016/09/05/8496db42-655b-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

What is amusing, at least when viewed through the lens of nostalgia, is how the Clintons have finally buried a Whitewater era joke along the lines of how the Bush family was simply far too well off (and connected) to even be tempted by the sort of money that could buy the Clintons. The Clintons have now started to reach Bush levels of pay off, even if Chelsea has yet to be involved in the plundering of a financial institution.

I think Bill's link is legit, therefore this MR story was foolish or evil.

Bill is a liar and so are you. Go flip 45 heads in a row like your 1/31,000,000,0000,000 miracle worker Hillary.

I can be both foolish and evil.

Although I can both be foolish and evil, for some reason the comment response should have read: It can be both foolish and evil, referring to the MR story.

Go flip the coins, Bill. 1/31T chance you aren't a stooge.

As far as the email server and the sale of access, it seems to me that these are minor and that most politicians do those sorts of things. Much to much is classified and the politicians know that, and I would guess they use classification to keep stuff from the voters. I do not think Hillary Clinton is a bad person for doing this stuff.

BUT where and when do we start, and I think that we should start, punishing powerful politicians for breaking the laws they make and/or enforce?

When the fate of the nation does not hang in the balance.

For instance, I could vote for Dole on character.

The "fate of the nation" hangs on every presidential election. So, applying this standard, every Presidential candidate is above the law - which, I think, is the revealed preference of the majority of American voters.

Trump's entire appeal, and every defense, is based on false equivalence.

Trump is not Dole.

You don't like Trump's aesthetic, end of story. Hillary will, without a doubt, start more than one war qhile President. But Trump says embarassing things, and you are an image conscious man.

Dole's Wikipedia page doesn't even have a "controversy" section.

Appeal to Authority.

This is not rocket science. As you can see from this thread, everyone will make excuses for misbehavior by their preferred candidate while putting a microscope on the other guy. So who is the "preferred candidate" of the majority of American media?

I actually wrote the above, about false equivalence, before seeing this direct appeal to it.

I rarely see an actual logical argument attached to someone claiming false equivalence.

That would be a devastating riposte if I were claiming equivalence between Trump and Clinton. But my post wasn't even about Trump or Clinton. Keep trying though.

Hillary Clinton definitely made an outsized fortune peddling influence. This has been demonstrated, fortunately unlike the Clintons all the other super rich made their fortunes in through totally ethical and legal generation of value and it is important never to tax them lest they keep their rare and perfect genius bottled up out of spite for the moochers.

Shorter Bill, Anon, and the other Clinton lickspittles in this thread:

"Don't believe your lying eyes."

As cynical as I am, it still sometimes astonishes me how willingly some people are to completely abase themselves trying to defend the indefensible.

Sigh....like you couldn't say EXACTLY the same thing about Trump supporters. We have a perfect storm this election, where each candidate is so awful that the other side can't believe how they have any support at all. Literally any generic Dem would crush Trump, and any generic Rep would crush Clinton. But that's not what the primaries gave us.

As cynical as I am, I am surprised to see the resurrection of old stories that were dismissed in their time, where there was review (Melamed review and comments), ample investigation, etc. Maybe the game is: assume people have short memories, will not bother to look up what the conclusions were, will not bother to read to the end of the Wiki article that formed this post, etc. You know, if there were something there, there would have been something there. Her critics are not weak kneed, but perhaps they hope their followers have short memories or don't bother to search as to what was the disposition, just as they hope by saying "Whitewater" one will believe there was a scandal when the evidence, after investigation, showed there was not.

The bottom line is, there's a big chunk of the electorate who just can't stand her. I don't understand the intensity of it, but it's a fact. So they will never stop trying to show how shady she is. And the thing is, Bill, she IS shady. Regardless of the details, a reasonable person has to conclude that is the case.

However, the same reasonable person would have to conclude the exact same thing about her opponent. He's undoubtedly as shady as she is. So it's just partisans at each other's throats, and each just going after the other guy because their guy is so awful. But they are Team Blue or Team Red so that's how it has to be.

Sad state of affairs.

Actually, there is a bit of humor, dark though it is, here.

One candidate (Trump) says: Hey, I gave money to influence politicians. The system is corrupt, and I know, I gave to get favors in return. That's the way the world works.

His former New York Mayor supporter (Gulliani), a recipient of those dollars, is never asked: What did you do to for Donald Trump when he claims he gave that money to influence you.

Either one is telling the truth (Trump) and the other lying (that he was not influenced) , or the money was not given.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are certainly shady. Both have abused power for their own benefit. However, I'm not convinced that their core supporters are purely playing Team. I think that both sides honestly believe that their person is the least worst option.

However, it's human nature to not be willing to admit, even to oneself, that your option is merely slightly less worse than the other guy. Hence, the impassioned defense of Hillary Clinton's obviously unethical previous behavior.

Agreed, but honestly believing your guy is the least worst really is a Team thing too. If Trump were running as a Dem (not at all implausible considering his history, although he would not have won their nomination so easily), most core Clinton supporters would be doing similar backflips to defend him, and the core Team Red folks would be attacking him mercilessly. That's where we are in this country right now, it's pure identity partisanship.

"That’s where we are in this country right now, it’s pure identity partisanship."

I'm not convinced that it's ever been much different. I'm reminded of the famous Daisy ad. LBJ won after all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

The fear mongering in that ad is just as bad as anything I've seen recently. And it's from 52 years ago.

Indeed, I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is any worse than Richard Nixon nor Donald Trump is any worse than Andrew Jackson. Yet, both those men were elected President and yet the country didn't collapse. Too many people always want to assume that this moment is the worst ever! And it was way better and more civilized back in my day.

Politics has always been a trade off between our aspirations and our fears. We live in a stable democracy and either Presidential candidate will have to deal with the checks and balances of the Courts and the Legislature.

JWatts I agree completely, I'm not saying the republic will fail no matter who wins, and I agree elections don't matter nearly as much as everyone thinks every 4 years. I just think given the bad choices, it's pretty obvious who represents something at least a little closer to who we aspire to be. I won't lose any sleep is Trump wins, but I will be saddened and embarrassed. I think it should be a job for serious people, not clowns.

"I just think given the bad choices, it’s pretty obvious who represents something at least a little closer to who we aspire to be."

Indeed! A nation of laws over a nation of men. Hillary is someone who has spent her entire adult life, thwarting the rule of law to get her way. So, I will be sad that the rule of law will suffer from a Hillary Presidency. She'll spend four years attempting to bypass Congress and she's skillful enough to be successful at it. But the country will survive.

Trump is the "nation of laws" guy? LOL.

Trump will be held to the standard of Laws by the Congress, Courts and the Media.

As cynical as I am, it still sometimes astonishes me how willingly some people are to completely abase themselves trying to defend the indefensible.

You're assuming there is such a thing as truth and that there are such things as fixed standards of conduct. The opposition just thinks you're trash-talking them. The Clinton's operate in a matrix of people who are not paying attention and of people who are paying attention and think just like them.

I definitely agree with those who find the trading results wildly implausible.

But I would like to know exactly what whoever finagled them got in return. We are told, by the Supreme Court no less, that there is no corruption involved in large political donations - many times $100K - unless there can be shown to have been a specific quid pro quo - for example, an AG dropping an investigation in exchange for a contribution.

Now, I think this is silly, and campaign finance has a lot of the characteristics of legal bribery. But let's at least pretend to be consistent. I know that the $100K profit was not exctly the same as a campaign contribution, but it's close enough.

There is a huge difference between buying ad time for a politician, or even donating the $2700 max to their campaign on the one hand, and slipping $100K into their personal bank account on the other.

It's a little like the difference between making a donation to a college to boost your kid's admission chances and bribing an admission officer directly.

I don't know if MR existed in 2000, but I wounder if Tyler would have brought up the sweetheart deal that GWB made with his Texas Rangers to have the taxpayers fund his millions. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2000/01/18/3313/how-george-w-bush-scored-big-texas-rangers

The Center for Public Integrity informs its readers

"The stadium’s lease is a case in point. Unlike an apartment tenant, the rent that the team’s owners pay is applied toward purchasing the stadium. The maximum yearly rent and maintenence fees for the Rangers are $5 million; the total purchase price for the Ballpark at Arlington is $60 million. Thus, after 12 years the owners will have bought the stadium for less than half of what taxpayers spent on it."

The stadium opened in 1994. Under the 2007 lease agreement with the Authority which owns the stadium, the team can exercise it's option to buy the stadium only in 2024, and only in a 12 month window.

The bond issue to build the stadium was approved by a public referendum. You may think that's a bad use of public money, but it's not your call.

The annual rental on the stadium is too low, to be sure.

I'm confused. Does Tyler actually believe the press does not give HRC what he so delicately calls "the benefit of the doubt?" Regarding every conceivable subject? Over 25 Years? Man!

thank you all for your kindness and love in Correcting the Record ✔

Well Woosh to me. I just now noticed the Hillary Clinton to Lord Voldemort comparison in Tyler's title. Sometimes I can be pretty dense.

In my view it’s very crucial that we understand well about the benefit since it’s how we are able to work it out accurately, if we really wish to be successful then we got to keep going strongly and only then it will make things work out better. I am able to do it all easier with OctaFX broker and their strong support using their daily market analysis service, it’s ever easy and we can follow it without much trouble or difficulty whatsoever.

Comments for this post are closed