What we have witnessed in history before, is that it was the average German, the basically decent loving people, who enabled the worst of the Holocaust.
This is why I mentally translate "racist" and/or "nazi" into "not a democrat".
The guy who supported his daughter becoming a Jew is an antisemitic to Nazi levels? Was that before or after he was waving a rainbow flag at his own rally?
Oh, and his AG choice is a KKK supporter... when he's not desegregating schools, executing KKK leaders, or supporting the previous Black AG. Because what we're supposed to treat seriously is the hearsay at the hearing where he got Bork'ed and not his actions.
Accusations of Racism is a club used for cynical political purposes. Trump and his crew oppose open-boarders and illegal immigration (one of the big reasons I voted against him), however that's just a (bad) policy choice.
If accusations of racism/Nazism is the only way you've got to describe bad policy then you've already lost the argument. Trump isn't sending his daughter and grandchildren into death camps. Suggesting he will just shows that you don't have a serious argument and people tune you out.
We’re the party of the working class and will help you...
Except your jobs will be sacrificed to the "green".
You can't be trusted to choose your own school because you might choose the one which doesn't have the union, their jobs are more important than your kid's education.
And gov employees will get gold plated pensions far greater than yours, however you get to pay for them.
Greens and the Government come before the working class.
Ignoring that the allegations are from insiders talking about other insiders (thank you wiki-leaks); the way that Foundation raised and spent money was deeply corrupt on the face of it.
Give me millions of dollars or I'll do nasty things to you in my role as head of an important US government agency. Don't worry, the money can't be spent on me personally, I'll just personally spend the Billions I get on approved (left) causes run by my friends and increase my power base.
If I spend money on an Elementary school, everyone aided by it will know darn well that the money comes from me directly. If I want a political favor they'd better fork over because I'm the one who is holding their wallet. I.e. I'm only going to fund that school if it's in the district of someone I already know I want a favor from.
The influence of this foundation is supposed to be subtle, but purse-strings aren't nothing. Two Billion dollars spent in support of left causes (and in support of HRC's political career) probably goes a long way to explain why HRC was only opposed by someone outside the party who never took money.
If your allegation is a *bribe*, and you are not able to state who *did* the bribe or for what purpose, uh, yeah, kinda important.
My allegation is that she was given those trades, rather than strapping on a pair of skates and then winning the Olympics.
It, even in the event your understanding of events is completely correct, changes things from a *bribe* to an illegal donation.
So all we have is a politician's wife who received more than a year's worth of income... for what exactly? Since we don't know, it must be "innocent"? Who gave her the money, why was this "donation" obfuscated so much, and who were these trades taken from?
it is very easy to make statements that are technically true but cause incorrect conclusions using probabilities.
There's no way to spin winning the Olympics so that it's easy. This type of trading is a serious competitive sport done at high levels by serious people for serious money.
Name some people who have made similar levels of profits in similar situations. If it's *easy* to make 10x on your first day and 60x or 100x over all, lots of people must have done it.
If those "experts" who had never heard of any retail person accomplishing this are simply wrong, or if "expert advice" makes this easy, then history should be littered with good examples.
You seem to think this somehow says things about *today*, that the Clintons are still corrupt.
The pattern is, the spouse who is out of power collects money for the spouse who is, the spouse who is in power does favours for the people giving the money.
If we're talking about "currently", then they have a very oddly structured Charity, which is funded mostly by people HRC can do political favours for. They have Bill give speeches to people who are subject to HRC's political power.
An older example would be Bill pardoning Rich after HRC received various amounts of money from Rich's wife. Let me just quote former President Carter on this, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts."
Of course now that TCF exists, Rich's wife could have just given large amounts of money to the Foundation, presumably for the same effect. To my eye, that's the entire purpose of TCF existing, and for that matter it's reason she'd need her own private email server.
But if you want to claim that’s basically legalized bribery, I agree. You want to claim it’s something unique to the Clintons, I have to disagree.
The unique part with the Clintons was Bill was giving speeches to people who would have assumed they were subject to Hillary. Senator, Sec of State, and then (assumed) President. Imagine Barbara Bush giving speeches to people dealing with her husband while Bush was still in power.
Of course, regardless of whether or not you agree with me about the real problem here…I think we both agree that Trump is a completely ludicrous solution.
I would say "a real problem" rather than "the real problem"... as for Trump, ludicrous or not, we're stuck with him. Let's hope all those years managing hundreds of companies has taught him something. I would have far rather seen Romney run on a pro-growth platform (because if we have growth then all this discontent disappears) but whatever.
Studies have repeatedly shown that the concerns of non-wealthy people are simply not addressed *at all*.
Of course they're not. The larger and more encompassing the gov, the more it's going to be removed from the people. The rarest resource in the universe is the attention of upper management.
Why should Congress or the President pay attention to someone making $10k/year, or even $100k/year, when they don't have the bandwidth to talk to everyone who makes a million a year who wants to deal with them?
Michael J Fox went public with his getting Parkinson's, and the head of one of these "cure-Parkinson's" groups went with him to Congress and met with various high powered members. Afterwards she broke down and started crying; Mike was surprised because he'd thought they were doing pretty well, they got to talk to Trent Lott and so forth. Then he realised she'd been trying to do this sort of thing for years or decades and without the power of his Celebrity, they never would have talked to the Congressmen.
You think that Congress is going to actually give Trump a blanket waiver to accept any foreign gifts?
I think Trump is even more money motivated than the Clintons, and the talk of "gifts" ignores the way Trump is going to cash in on this. The Trump brand just increased in stature. The Trump organization is well positioned to cash in on this just from a branding standpoint. Even if he never finds out who is assuming what by renting whatever, we now have the appearance of quality and presidential attention.
We'll get an ugly compromise on gifts, maybe handing over his brand to his kids. I seriously doubt a GOP controlled Congress is going to go to war with their unexpectedly popular President on an issue already inspected by the general population.
‘Oh yeah? What about that time you blanket-allowed the president to accept any foreign gifts?’
We've already seen this. HRC made doing her official duties contingent on foreign governments giving money to her charity. That the charity mostly did good things (at least from the Left's standpoint) is irrelevant.
Now, it’s very likely that with Jeff “Too racist for the 1980’s” Session as AG, it’s going to be gone, maybe literally soon enough.
The guy's history (reportedly) includes desegregating schools, having the head of the state Klan given the death penalty, and supporting the nomination of Eric Holder.
‘No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.’
Any bets on whether Congress will "consent" to the President keeping his empire? Maybe give him a general waver? IMHO they'd be crazy not to, his empire is a big reason why people voted for him.
You stand and say, often, that we should give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Yet here you wish to talk about Clinton’s corruption, as if it is a given and solid thing...
What part of this are we pretending we don't understand? That they're not given big bags of money (fact 1)? Or that they don't do "favours" for the people who do this (fact 2)?
As Marc Rich's pardon demonstrates, the Clintons' behaviour doesn't rise to the level of "criminality" because we can't legally prove an defined agreement between the first fact and the second. However we do know both those facts exist.
Bill and HRC are both lawyers, they know where the lines are drawn. They apparently don't step over lines which end in their arrest. However the line they stay inside is "provably criminal" rather than "ethical" or "appearance of impropriety".
As long as they deliberately mix their personal and public business (for example raising money for her own private "charity" from the people she's doing favours for as the Sec of State) and getting big bags of money transferred to their control; "openly corrupt" (as opposed to "criminal") seems like a good way to describe them.
Feel free to suggest a description other than "openly corrupt", but whatever we say needs to describe how they use their public office to rake in 9 or 10 digits of money.
Trump is in this situation because for months no one serious thought he'd win. Having said that, I have serious doubts that either Obama or Bush before him had good transitions. There were a lot of "not ready yet" mistakes, possibly leading to 911 in Bush's case.
...when faced with the least godly candidate to ever grace the stage...
From their point of view, why is this true?
When Trump does his fowl-mouthed-old-man thing, does he take the Lord's name in vain? Call down God's wrath on someone? Has Trump worshipped other gods (money doesn't count)? Discouraged the worship of God? Sued a church or something?
In other parts of the world, there are Christians being put to death for the crime of having their god. Obama seems determined, because of political correctness, to not call the situation for what it is, even if the followers of that ideology/religion some times show up here and shoot up an army base or gay night club. Hillary would follow Obama's policy.
After that we have... what? Sex? Compare what Trump has said to what Hillary+Bill have actually done.
Trump brings a total lack of dignity to the office, which we might compare to Congress investigating Hillary for various crimes even before she takes office.
Trump's real "sins" (compared to HRC), are an absolutely total lack of piety (i.e. Pride) and a disconnect from what I'll call "the Christian Culture"... although weirdly his family seems really functional (and non-Trump-ish), so I'm not sure how much "family values" would weigh against him.
And then we have the Supreme Court, where Trump has already released "his" list (copied from Heritage or someone)... and this is probably the most important point. Trump offered a simple deal, the Religious Right backs him and he'll use Heritage(?) to pick his Supreme(s). The Court is currently 4-4.
I’m sure most conservatives would rather not vote for a man known to assault women, but those voters – unlike liberals I suppose – did not view Trump’s behavior as fundamentally disqualifying.
To be fair, liberals consider this sort of behaviour "disqualifying" only when it's a member of the GOP. They were just fine with Bill's behaviour and defended him against impeachment... even though the Presidency wasn't at stake with VP Gore also a Dem.
Trump got +5% of Dems to vote for him (i.e. 5% more than Romney), but +4% of the GOP switched to Hillary. So a significant number of people were turned off by either/both sides.
I don't think anyone really condones Trump's behaviour, they ignore or tolerate it because they like the message. For example the Evangelicals went heavy for Trump, not because they approve of his divorces or believe he's actually pro-life, but because he put in writing who he'd put on the Supreme Court.
That fact that he might be just a cynical egomaniac instead of someone with a sincere hatred of various minorities doesn’t make it better, because his followers still hear it and start defending the notion that only white judges can give fair rulings in cases even vaguely adjacent to issues of race.
I mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure how useful it is to take literally clear trash talk.
Let's look at speech from a much smoother politician.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
If it were a White judge (one assumes ruling the same way which is likely), Trump would find a different way to be an ass. Witness going after John McCain's war record.
Where, other than Mass, was this attempted, much less implemented?
Exchanges, mandates, the lack of pre-existing conditions, and tax subsidies were the right’s *only ideas*.
Lack of Transparency prevents consumers from knowing how much something costs. Force the publication of all costs.
Lack of Transparency also prevents consumers from knowing how safe a doctor or hospital is, and it's a real challenge to figure out who is good at what. How many surgeries of type X does Doctor Y do a year? What is his success rate?
3rd party pays prevents consumers from having any skin in the game, figure out a way that they do, the HSA isn't a terrible way to do it but there are others.
In the news recently are drugs off patent (epi-pens for example) which increase in price to crazy levels. Why do we have one pen while Europe has 9 or so? Regulatory capture? Standards set too high?
And yes, I shouldn't lose my insurance just because I have to move across state lines, so letting insurance be sold across state lines would be good.
And yes, defensive medicine is a bad thing, so tort reform would be good.
Medical mistakes are a problem. There are better ways to address this than lawyers, where the doctors are incentivized to hide their mistakes so other doctors can make the same mistakes. Something like what we do for vaccinations would probably work, and/or what the Air Force(? I think) does for mistakes. Reviewed them, examine them, don't blame the guy who did it, blame the system and fix it.
Of course, I am *not* making entirely random movements.
You say that like doing this is the equiv of walking across the room. It's more like winning a gold medal at the Olympics, actually a lot harder because *someone* is going to win even if everyone screws up. If you claim to have put on ice-skates for the first time and you got a gold metal at the Olympics (one of the other comparisons used by experts to describe how unlikely all this was), then we should be concerned.
The next question we should ask is if there's a simpler explanation.
Neither was Clinton. She was being advised by someone who knew the market well.
Even ignoring that the guy who "knew the market well" wasn't profitable himself, how many people who "know the market well" get these sorts of results? When her defenders talk about other people making this level of money in the market, they're talking about raw money (from people trading far bigger accounts), not percentage gains.
Moreover, while you’re citing *this paper* as evidence of all the claims, I will point out there’s no raw data of claims like ‘She often sold at the highest price a day and sold at the lowest one’, which would be pretty damning…but isn’t *here*.
I'm not willing to pay the $40 to down load it, those damning claims come from reporters' summaries and others evaluations. Worse, many of the records either don't exist or never did. This link here details what we know about her highs and lows. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436066/hillary-clinton-cattle-futures-windfall
So, throwing *that* away, what exactly was this office bribing her for?
So if I can't detail exactly who was paying the wife of the governor and exactly who benefited and how, the math should just get a handwave? My lack of ability to detail exactly what transaction took place doesn't change the underlying math, nor the shear insanity of someone like HRC risking her family's net worth in a field where the expected result is large losses.
It's possible we're looking at another "Marc Rich" situation where the transaction is deliberately kept vague enough so one can't get arrested, and if we could put a back-in-time movie camera on this we'd see handshakes rather than written agreements, and winks rather than handshakes.
I'm focused on the math of all this. And the math would be damning even without the whole "and the office was convicted of routinely did this for VIPs at that time" aspect of it.
On “Confession of a Liberal Gun Owner”
Now that Trump is elected, does that change anyone's mind about gun ownership?
Everyone on the Left still sure we can trust the government's sanity over multiple centuries?
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
Trump waving the rainbow flag at his rally.
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/carlo-allegri-donald-trump-lgbt-flag-2016-presidential-election.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=3698
http://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/2016/10/31/trump_rainbow_flag.png
"
This is why I mentally translate "racist" and/or "nazi" into "not a democrat".
The guy who supported his daughter becoming a Jew is an antisemitic to Nazi levels? Was that before or after he was waving a rainbow flag at his own rally?
Oh, and his AG choice is a KKK supporter... when he's not desegregating schools, executing KKK leaders, or supporting the previous Black AG. Because what we're supposed to treat seriously is the hearsay at the hearing where he got Bork'ed and not his actions.
Accusations of Racism is a club used for cynical political purposes. Trump and his crew oppose open-boarders and illegal immigration (one of the big reasons I voted against him), however that's just a (bad) policy choice.
If accusations of racism/Nazism is the only way you've got to describe bad policy then you've already lost the argument. Trump isn't sending his daughter and grandchildren into death camps. Suggesting he will just shows that you don't have a serious argument and people tune you out.
On “Morning Ed: Labor {2016.11.21.M}”
Except your jobs will be sacrificed to the "green".
You can't be trusted to choose your own school because you might choose the one which doesn't have the union, their jobs are more important than your kid's education.
And gov employees will get gold plated pensions far greater than yours, however you get to pay for them.
Greens and the Government come before the working class.
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
This is why I assume it's the left painting swastikas. For every true nazi there's tens of thousands of SJWs who'd love to paint the Right as nazis.
"
Ignoring that the allegations are from insiders talking about other insiders (thank you wiki-leaks); the way that Foundation raised and spent money was deeply corrupt on the face of it.
Give me millions of dollars or I'll do nasty things to you in my role as head of an important US government agency. Don't worry, the money can't be spent on me personally, I'll just personally spend the Billions I get on approved (left) causes run by my friends and increase my power base.
If I spend money on an Elementary school, everyone aided by it will know darn well that the money comes from me directly. If I want a political favor they'd better fork over because I'm the one who is holding their wallet. I.e. I'm only going to fund that school if it's in the district of someone I already know I want a favor from.
The influence of this foundation is supposed to be subtle, but purse-strings aren't nothing. Two Billion dollars spent in support of left causes (and in support of HRC's political career) probably goes a long way to explain why HRC was only opposed by someone outside the party who never took money.
On “The Scorecard”
My allegation is that she was given those trades, rather than strapping on a pair of skates and then winning the Olympics.
So all we have is a politician's wife who received more than a year's worth of income... for what exactly? Since we don't know, it must be "innocent"? Who gave her the money, why was this "donation" obfuscated so much, and who were these trades taken from?
There's no way to spin winning the Olympics so that it's easy. This type of trading is a serious competitive sport done at high levels by serious people for serious money.
Name some people who have made similar levels of profits in similar situations. If it's *easy* to make 10x on your first day and 60x or 100x over all, lots of people must have done it.
If those "experts" who had never heard of any retail person accomplishing this are simply wrong, or if "expert advice" makes this easy, then history should be littered with good examples.
The pattern is, the spouse who is out of power collects money for the spouse who is, the spouse who is in power does favours for the people giving the money.
If we're talking about "currently", then they have a very oddly structured Charity, which is funded mostly by people HRC can do political favours for. They have Bill give speeches to people who are subject to HRC's political power.
An older example would be Bill pardoning Rich after HRC received various amounts of money from Rich's wife. Let me just quote former President Carter on this, "I don't think there is any doubt that some of the factors in his pardon were attributable to his large gifts."
Of course now that TCF exists, Rich's wife could have just given large amounts of money to the Foundation, presumably for the same effect. To my eye, that's the entire purpose of TCF existing, and for that matter it's reason she'd need her own private email server.
"
The unique part with the Clintons was Bill was giving speeches to people who would have assumed they were subject to Hillary. Senator, Sec of State, and then (assumed) President. Imagine Barbara Bush giving speeches to people dealing with her husband while Bush was still in power.
I would say "a real problem" rather than "the real problem"... as for Trump, ludicrous or not, we're stuck with him. Let's hope all those years managing hundreds of companies has taught him something. I would have far rather seen Romney run on a pro-growth platform (because if we have growth then all this discontent disappears) but whatever.
Of course they're not. The larger and more encompassing the gov, the more it's going to be removed from the people. The rarest resource in the universe is the attention of upper management.
Why should Congress or the President pay attention to someone making $10k/year, or even $100k/year, when they don't have the bandwidth to talk to everyone who makes a million a year who wants to deal with them?
Michael J Fox went public with his getting Parkinson's, and the head of one of these "cure-Parkinson's" groups went with him to Congress and met with various high powered members. Afterwards she broke down and started crying; Mike was surprised because he'd thought they were doing pretty well, they got to talk to Trent Lott and so forth. Then he realised she'd been trying to do this sort of thing for years or decades and without the power of his Celebrity, they never would have talked to the Congressmen.
"
I think Trump is even more money motivated than the Clintons, and the talk of "gifts" ignores the way Trump is going to cash in on this. The Trump brand just increased in stature. The Trump organization is well positioned to cash in on this just from a branding standpoint. Even if he never finds out who is assuming what by renting whatever, we now have the appearance of quality and presidential attention.
We'll get an ugly compromise on gifts, maybe handing over his brand to his kids. I seriously doubt a GOP controlled Congress is going to go to war with their unexpectedly popular President on an issue already inspected by the general population.
We've already seen this. HRC made doing her official duties contingent on foreign governments giving money to her charity. That the charity mostly did good things (at least from the Left's standpoint) is irrelevant.
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
Stuff like funding your kid's wedding?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/clinton-foundation-head-accused-chelsea-of-using-funds-for-wedding-campaigning-and-avoiding-taxes/
"
The guy's history (reportedly) includes desegregating schools, having the head of the state Klan given the death penalty, and supporting the nomination of Eric Holder.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/in-alabama-jeff-sessions-desegregated-schools-and-got-the-death-penalty-for-kkk-head/article/2005461
On “The Scorecard”
‘No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.’
Any bets on whether Congress will "consent" to the President keeping his empire? Maybe give him a general waver? IMHO they'd be crazy not to, his empire is a big reason why people voted for him.
On “Obama Is Warning America About Trump’s Presidency. Are You Listening? | New Republic”
Odds are the Left is proclaiming the Right are Nazis again. The Right mostly doesn't see itself as racist.
"
What part of this are we pretending we don't understand? That they're not given big bags of money (fact 1)? Or that they don't do "favours" for the people who do this (fact 2)?
As Marc Rich's pardon demonstrates, the Clintons' behaviour doesn't rise to the level of "criminality" because we can't legally prove an defined agreement between the first fact and the second. However we do know both those facts exist.
Bill and HRC are both lawyers, they know where the lines are drawn. They apparently don't step over lines which end in their arrest. However the line they stay inside is "provably criminal" rather than "ethical" or "appearance of impropriety".
As long as they deliberately mix their personal and public business (for example raising money for her own private "charity" from the people she's doing favours for as the Sec of State) and getting big bags of money transferred to their control; "openly corrupt" (as opposed to "criminal") seems like a good way to describe them.
Feel free to suggest a description other than "openly corrupt", but whatever we say needs to describe how they use their public office to rake in 9 or 10 digits of money.
"
test
"
Trump is in this situation because for months no one serious thought he'd win. Having said that, I have serious doubts that either Obama or Bush before him had good transitions. There were a lot of "not ready yet" mistakes, possibly leading to 911 in Bush's case.
On “On Reversing the Tide”
From their point of view, why is this true?
When Trump does his fowl-mouthed-old-man thing, does he take the Lord's name in vain? Call down God's wrath on someone? Has Trump worshipped other gods (money doesn't count)? Discouraged the worship of God? Sued a church or something?
In other parts of the world, there are Christians being put to death for the crime of having their god. Obama seems determined, because of political correctness, to not call the situation for what it is, even if the followers of that ideology/religion some times show up here and shoot up an army base or gay night club. Hillary would follow Obama's policy.
After that we have... what? Sex? Compare what Trump has said to what Hillary+Bill have actually done.
Trump brings a total lack of dignity to the office, which we might compare to Congress investigating Hillary for various crimes even before she takes office.
Trump's real "sins" (compared to HRC), are an absolutely total lack of piety (i.e. Pride) and a disconnect from what I'll call "the Christian Culture"... although weirdly his family seems really functional (and non-Trump-ish), so I'm not sure how much "family values" would weigh against him.
And then we have the Supreme Court, where Trump has already released "his" list (copied from Heritage or someone)... and this is probably the most important point. Trump offered a simple deal, the Religious Right backs him and he'll use Heritage(?) to pick his Supreme(s). The Court is currently 4-4.
"
:Amusement:
"
To be fair, liberals consider this sort of behaviour "disqualifying" only when it's a member of the GOP. They were just fine with Bill's behaviour and defended him against impeachment... even though the Presidency wasn't at stake with VP Gore also a Dem.
Trump got +5% of Dems to vote for him (i.e. 5% more than Romney), but +4% of the GOP switched to Hillary. So a significant number of people were turned off by either/both sides.
I don't think anyone really condones Trump's behaviour, they ignore or tolerate it because they like the message. For example the Evangelicals went heavy for Trump, not because they approve of his divorces or believe he's actually pro-life, but because he put in writing who he'd put on the Supreme Court.
"
Trump did significantly better than Romney with Blacks, Hispanics, Asians... but not Whites.
Reading the stats... one of the big things which stands out is Trump did a lot better with the poor (under $30k) than Romney.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
"
I mostly agree with you, but I'm not sure how useful it is to take literally clear trash talk.
Let's look at speech from a much smoother politician.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
-Obama, talking about the Republicans
"
If it were a White judge (one assumes ruling the same way which is likely), Trump would find a different way to be an ass. Witness going after John McCain's war record.
On “A One Party Nation”
Where, other than Mass, was this attempted, much less implemented?
Lack of Transparency prevents consumers from knowing how much something costs. Force the publication of all costs.
Lack of Transparency also prevents consumers from knowing how safe a doctor or hospital is, and it's a real challenge to figure out who is good at what. How many surgeries of type X does Doctor Y do a year? What is his success rate?
3rd party pays prevents consumers from having any skin in the game, figure out a way that they do, the HSA isn't a terrible way to do it but there are others.
In the news recently are drugs off patent (epi-pens for example) which increase in price to crazy levels. Why do we have one pen while Europe has 9 or so? Regulatory capture? Standards set too high?
And yes, I shouldn't lose my insurance just because I have to move across state lines, so letting insurance be sold across state lines would be good.
And yes, defensive medicine is a bad thing, so tort reform would be good.
Medical mistakes are a problem. There are better ways to address this than lawyers, where the doctors are incentivized to hide their mistakes so other doctors can make the same mistakes. Something like what we do for vaccinations would probably work, and/or what the Air Force(? I think) does for mistakes. Reviewed them, examine them, don't blame the guy who did it, blame the system and fix it.
On “The Scorecard”
You say that like doing this is the equiv of walking across the room. It's more like winning a gold medal at the Olympics, actually a lot harder because *someone* is going to win even if everyone screws up. If you claim to have put on ice-skates for the first time and you got a gold metal at the Olympics (one of the other comparisons used by experts to describe how unlikely all this was), then we should be concerned.
The next question we should ask is if there's a simpler explanation.
Even ignoring that the guy who "knew the market well" wasn't profitable himself, how many people who "know the market well" get these sorts of results? When her defenders talk about other people making this level of money in the market, they're talking about raw money (from people trading far bigger accounts), not percentage gains.
I'm not willing to pay the $40 to down load it, those damning claims come from reporters' summaries and others evaluations. Worse, many of the records either don't exist or never did. This link here details what we know about her highs and lows. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436066/hillary-clinton-cattle-futures-windfall
So if I can't detail exactly who was paying the wife of the governor and exactly who benefited and how, the math should just get a handwave? My lack of ability to detail exactly what transaction took place doesn't change the underlying math, nor the shear insanity of someone like HRC risking her family's net worth in a field where the expected result is large losses.
It's possible we're looking at another "Marc Rich" situation where the transaction is deliberately kept vague enough so one can't get arrested, and if we could put a back-in-time movie camera on this we'd see handshakes rather than written agreements, and winks rather than handshakes.
I'm focused on the math of all this. And the math would be damning even without the whole "and the office was convicted of routinely did this for VIPs at that time" aspect of it.
On “A One Party Nation”
If anyone cares: This link deconstructs Trump's history with racism...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.