General Discussion

Calista241

(5,633 posts)

189. Who has his own 1000% ROI in less than 10 months to show as well right?

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 01:25 PM

Feb 2015

From the same Wikipedia article:

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."

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."[12]

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.[14]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

239 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HRC is NOT a member of a dynasty (Jeb Bush is, of course) [View all] planetc Feb 2015 OP

And don't forget Senator Prescott Bush, the Nazi-assister who began the dynasty. pnwmom Feb 2015 #1

... napkinz Feb 2015 #2

No, yet I suppose she could be a co-founder of a dynasty only time will tell... HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #3

Editorial Stinks billhicks76 Feb 2015 #105

We certainly need choices going in to the primary... HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #122

yes she is. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #4

Two people, not of the same blood, don't make a dynasty. pnwmom Feb 2015 #5

they make a political dynasty. and it is of little moment whether they were "elected through ND-Dem Feb 2015 #7

No. Two highly-qualified people don't constitute a dynasty. And Hillary Clinton is a former Secretary of State pnwmom Feb 2015 #13

she got to be Senator/SoS because of having been the President's wife, in the last analysis. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #25

Whatever. the circumstances: two people, separated by 16 years, don't constitute a dynasty. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #36

according to you ms webster. apparently other linguistic masters disagree. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #42

Yup that's the only reason she was qualified for that... Agschmid Feb 2015 #88

If she hadn't been first bill's wife as governor, then his wife as president, it's unlikely she'd ND-Dem Feb 2015 #127

Hear Hear! Aviation_Semi-Pro Feb 2015 #151

She had a law degree from Yale and many years of campaign experience before pnwmom Feb 2015 #161

campaign experience on bill's campaigns. yale degrees are nice, but lots of people have ND-Dem Feb 2015 #164

You think her activities as First Lady didn't provide her with valuable knowledge and experience, pnwmom Feb 2015 #167

of course they did. but she wouldn't have had them, had she not been first lady. that's the ND-Dem Feb 2015 #168

Her efforts had a lot to do with Bill getting elected, so it works both ways. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #173

of course. but again, as potential first lady. i believe her efforts included something about ND-Dem Feb 2015 #174

What I remember is people criticizing her for getting too involved in policy. pnwmom Feb 2015 #175

The policy people got mad about was ... HEALTH CARE. She wanted people to HAVE it!!! Oh, the huge MADem Feb 2015 #199

Yup. And Children's health care was the worst of all! (CHIP) But don't forget the lobbying she was pnwmom Feb 2015 #204

Don't bother listening to someone who doesn't even realize that she worked in DC MADem Feb 2015 #198

Her boss TERMINATED her & refused to recommend her for any other jobs! Divernan Feb 2015 #203

All these claims were made by a conspiracy theorist who switched sides and now writes for outlets like NEWSMAX, pnwmom Feb 2015 #208

I love it when they unintentionally OUT themselves--and this was a doozy. MADem Feb 2015 #213

Here's another long piece written by Zeifman about how much he loathes Ted Kennedy. pnwmom Feb 2015 #214

The Big Z has been caught in lie after lie after lie--only someone who was just so anxious to MADem Feb 2015 #218

Yup. Agschmid Feb 2015 #215

Good GAWD, you sure are a selective reader--but thanks for OUTING yourself so robustly!!!!! MADem Feb 2015 #211

She never would have been elected to the senate if she hadn't been first lady tularetom Feb 2015 #37

Thank you for this good example of "Hillary-hate." Someone else was claiming not to ever see it pnwmom Feb 2015 #39

Pity a jury let this blatantly sexist statement stand. Lancero Feb 2015 #43

That was juried and not hidden? F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #49

As it should have. It was a misogynist post if I've ever seen one. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #71

Oops. I meant to refer to the results. Editing it. nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #75

Whoops. I thought you were being sarcastic. My sincerest apologies. eom BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #84

It was was very poorly worded F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #89

Thank you for the out, F4IconF16! BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #96

It's a bullshit comment... Agschmid Feb 2015 #92

I apologize if you were offended by my comments tularetom Feb 2015 #69

That was hate. Pretty black and white IMO. Agschmid Feb 2015 #95

So we are defining hate now as being critical of a politician? zeemike Feb 2015 #87

No.But you apparently define a sexist, nasty attack as being "criticism." pnwmom Feb 2015 #90

Yup. Agschmid Feb 2015 #97

Well I fail to see how that is sexist. zeemike Feb 2015 #99

This remark would be sexist no matter what party was being discussed. pnwmom Feb 2015 #101

Well it is not to me. zeemike Feb 2015 #106

What is deeply offensive is the poster's suggestion that Hillary's sleeping with the man who "got a BJ" pnwmom Feb 2015 #108

Well as long as we are offended by things zeemike Feb 2015 #112

Except here you are playing it. Agschmid Feb 2015 #115

Why?...because not being offended by words is emotional? zeemike Feb 2015 #120

Right, you're not into that game. pnwmom Feb 2015 #118

Yes. Agschmid Feb 2015 #102

If you're going to make the ridiculous claim that Hillary Clinton is not part of a political dynasty Marr Feb 2015 #116

It's a sexist slur that is justified by nothing. But you're right in the sense pnwmom Feb 2015 #117

Yup. Agschmid Feb 2015 #91

you think that's a good example of 'hate'? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #153

Accusing her of sleeping her way to the top is sexist hate. Yes. n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #158

Wow, Winner of DU's most sexist post ever! FSogol Feb 2015 #70

I'm not sure about that, but it IS a blatant expression of what, IMO, is at the root pnwmom Feb 2015 #98

"... But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office." DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #107

Hillary got 48% of the delegates in the primaries. No one "wiped the floor" with her. pnwmom Feb 2015 #178

"She hasn't "earned" squat. But she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the Oval Office." WOW.. Cha Feb 2015 #222

It's up to you, but I would ask you to please consider self deleting this comment. KMOD Feb 2015 #223

No she isn't and besides, the false accusation comes from Republicans in 1994 wyldwolf Feb 2015 #8

+1 joshcryer Feb 2015 #10

i have no argument. all those families = political dynasties, same as the clintons. i'd never ND-Dem Feb 2015 #23

Except they don't wyldwolf Feb 2015 #24

so? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #26

So did Bill Clinton bestow the presidency on Hillary? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #28

i think you're confusing royal dynasties with political dynasties. did bush sr. "bestow" ND-Dem Feb 2015 #32

I'm not confusing anything wyldwolf Feb 2015 #35

you seem to be the one making up your own rules. i've cited dictionaries and news items. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #46

You cited dictionaries and then misapplied the definition wyldwolf Feb 2015 #53

how's that 'wyldwolf'? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #57

Easy 'ND-Dem' wyldwolf Feb 2015 #62

so the adams family was not a political dynasty because they didn't succeed each other ND-Dem Feb 2015 #124

Based on YOUR definiton, the one you keep pasting here wyldwolf Feb 2015 #126

uh, i don't think so, 'wyldwolf' ND-Dem Feb 2015 #128

you don't either, huh 'ND-Dem' wyldwolf Feb 2015 #130

be that as it may; it's the same one i quoted earlier. and a standard definition. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #132

Yeah, you used it with someone else. You called Wikipedia a 'linguistic master." Bwahaha. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #134

websters says that? can you link me to the direct succession part? dear? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #137

What? Again? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #138

I don't see anything like this there: ND-Dem Feb 2015 #139

Quote me where I said "a political dynasty meant direct succession to the same office," wyldwolf Feb 2015 #143

you quote my earlier quote: ND-Dem Feb 2015 #145

oh. So I DIDN'T REALLY say it. You just assume I meant it. Got it. LOL wyldwolf Feb 2015 #147

No, your comments assume it. There's no other possible interpretation of your comments. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #148

My comments assume it? ok, got it. LOL. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #149

yes. & you also claimed it was in websters. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #150

I claimed what you just admitted I didn't actually say was in webster's? LOL. Got it. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #152

here's one where you more directly say it, though to someone else. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #154

You're making a judgement of what's implicit in my statements. OK, got it. LOL. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #156

in that case, it's explicit. it was my error to type 'implicit'. got it? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #159

Is it implied, explicit, implicit, direct, assumed... ? You're tying yourself in knots. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #160

.... ND-Dem Feb 2015 #162

.... wyldwolf Feb 2015 #163

so you admit that you think "succession" is synonymous with "direct succession"? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #165

when have I ever denied it? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #183

Pay no mind. MADem Feb 2015 #196

Yes. Orsino Feb 2015 #191

Really? When was hillary elected? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #193

When the Clintons became beloved and the money aligned accordingly. n/t Orsino Feb 2015 #197

Imagine that. Hillary has been president this whole time! wyldwolf Feb 2015 #201

Incorrect. She's been First Lady, then senator, then SecState. Orsino Feb 2015 #221

wait, you said she'd been elected president. You're confusing everyone. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #224

I don't think there's an everyone here. Orsino Feb 2015 #227

She's secretly been the president since 2000? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #228

Nope. She coasted into the Senate, Sec State, and has been anointed president. Orsino Feb 2015 #229

So she's President now? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #230

She is your next president. Orsino Feb 2015 #231

Oh glad you clarified that (snicker) wyldwolf Feb 2015 #232

You may recall a previous eight-year gap. n/t Orsino Feb 2015 #233

It's been close to 14 years, has it not? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #235

I'm referring to the 41/43 gap. Orsino Feb 2015 #237

One minute she's the president and one minute she isn't wyldwolf Feb 2015 #238

That's just a consequence of the Clinton dynasty. Orsino Feb 2015 #239

Tell us again about the smiling North Koreans, Hannah... SidDithers Feb 2015 #14

Persistant... Hekate Feb 2015 #56

Ah, geez...they're one and the same?? BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #93

^^^THIS^^^ VanillaRhapsody Feb 2015 #6

You doth protest too much. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #9

That response was neither clever, applicable or original wyldwolf Feb 2015 #11

You're no one to put down another's post. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #15

I'm someone to put down another's post wyldwolf Feb 2015 #16

You're something. aikoaiko Feb 2015 #17

that's for sure. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #21

Don't let pesky facts get in the way of perfectly good outrage...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #12

I will try to clap harder Ramses Feb 2015 #18

Not yet she isn't Fumesucker Feb 2015 #19

I think if Hillary became president, we can safely say its a political dynasty dissentient Feb 2015 #20

I think if Hillary became president, we can safely say its not a political dynasty wyldwolf Feb 2015 #22

Why not? Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #31

Post #8 wyldwolf Feb 2015 #34

By definition... Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #50

Check the definition of succession wyldwolf Feb 2015 #55

So you don't consider the Bush family a dynasty? Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #76

I do not and have never made the argument. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #82

I do. Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #83

It's a free country. The bottom line is, some American's don't like the idea of being ruled over by dissentient Feb 2015 #38

most don't apparently. everything hill did, she did on her own merit. in theory. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #27

If she was a woman solely where she is by her own making and not Bills... cascadiance Feb 2015 #33

Semantics billhicks76 Feb 2015 #109

Triangulation at it's best- Hillary would be proud. peacebird Feb 2015 #29

Yeah. It's gonna be an interesting lead-up to the primary (assuming, of course, silvershadow Feb 2015 #45

If she were elected, yes, she would be LittleBlue Feb 2015 #30

There have been 16 years during which this non-dynasty did not maintain its power. pnwmom Feb 2015 #40

Wrong LittleBlue Feb 2015 #51

Can you do us all a favor and tell us what authority your definition of 'political dynasty' has? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #59

Merriam-Webster is my authority LittleBlue Feb 2015 #61

paste the definition from Merriam-Webster of 'political dynasty.' Or better yet, I will wyldwolf Feb 2015 #63

There is no precise definition of a political dynasty LittleBlue Feb 2015 #72

so what you're really doing is making up your own definition wyldwolf Feb 2015 #74

... LittleBlue Feb 2015 #79

... wyldwolf Feb 2015 #81

+1, well said nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #78

so what? few political dynasties have uninterrupted runs of power. at least not at the ND-Dem Feb 2015 #54

where do you get your definition of 'political dynasty' from? Oh, yeah, you made it up. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #85

Intellectual dishonesty? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #41

Bush didn't succeed his father LittleBlue Feb 2015 #52

So? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #65

So those are both unquestioned dynasties LittleBlue Feb 2015 #67

those don't meet the definition of 'dynasty' either wyldwolf Feb 2015 #68

Yes, they do. I'm sorry you have to defend Hillary at all costs LittleBlue Feb 2015 #77

No, they don't. And this isn't a 'defense' of Hillary wyldwolf Feb 2015 #80

It's funny, isn't it? Marr Feb 2015 #123

Perhaps you would like to reconcile the definition with your 'progressive' made up one? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #125

Thanks, I'm familiar with the english language. Your pained parsing is entertaining, though. /nt Marr Feb 2015 #133

Apparently enough to 'create' definitions. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #135

intellectual dishonesty seems to be the order of the day around these parts. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #47

+1 there are many types of dynasties. nt F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #58

Very astute. She also is not from the more "traditional" Democratic wings of the party- silvershadow Feb 2015 #44

"traditional" Democratic wings of the party? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #73

No. I explained what I meant. The labor the party embraced for the last 100+ years. silvershadow Feb 2015 #86

ok, so YOUR definition of 'traditional Democrats.' I'll play wyldwolf Feb 2015 #94

NAFTA is an albatross around both their necks. (Hill and Bill). I will make you a deal, silvershadow Feb 2015 #100

how is NAFTA an albatross around Hillary's neck? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #103

Perhaps not. I thought my vote was for who I think is the best candidate. silvershadow Feb 2015 #113

again, how is NAFTA an albatross around Hillary's neck? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #114

Sorry, poor example. Thanks, got it. Her views aren't anything at all unlike her husbands. silvershadow Feb 2015 #119

Apparently 60%+ Dem voters don't share your concern. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #121

LOL. You are fun. Doesn't matter to me, my vote doesn't count. Well, unless I withhold it from silvershadow Feb 2015 #129

Says the guy rooting for a sure loser. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #131

Hmm... remind me again-- which one of them has lost a national primary? Marr Feb 2015 #176

hmmm... remind me again what year we're discussing? wyldwolf Feb 2015 #182

"Maybe you can just redefine the word 'lost'" = lol. They seem to think word games are more ND-Dem Feb 2015 #187

Agree with the 60%+ Dem voters or else, silvershadow. You have no choice. RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #144

I will choose the Democrat when the so-called "primary" gets to me. The one who is left in silvershadow Feb 2015 #184

I never quite understood why some people referred to SoS Clinton as part of a dynasty, either. BlueCaliDem Feb 2015 #48

One little Ignore... sendero Feb 2015 #60

An ostrich-like approach to things. But if it works for you. wyldwolf Feb 2015 #66

1/3 of US Senate is relative of another public official. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #64

Neither is she a legacy./NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #104

lol. Marr Feb 2015 #110

Oh goody. Thanks for that clarification! I feel so much better! RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #111

You seriously think that ... 99Forever Feb 2015 #136

I'd say the hair-spliting is a really good sign RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #141

hair-splitting indeed. it hurts the head. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #155

I don't care about her bloodline, as much nichomachus Feb 2015 #140

Yes, but aside from that stuff, she's like, really, really great. RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #142

as long as she doesn't succeed bill directly and is only a clinton by marriage, ND-Dem Feb 2015 #157

Great!! That's truly inspiring! Vote for Hillary because (technically) she's not part of a dynasty RufusTFirefly Feb 2015 #166

it is inspiring, isn't it? i feel my heart warming as we speak. (though it may be heartburn. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #169

It depends on what the meaning of is is, er I mean Dynasty /nt Dragonfli Feb 2015 #170

exactly. ND-Dem Feb 2015 #172

Uh, What? Aviation_Semi-Pro Feb 2015 #146

Maybe time for me to retire MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #171

She was Hillary Rodham until she got bullied by the backwards media into becoming "Mrs. Clinton." MADem Feb 2015 #177

So the brains of the family believed Smirk was smart and Sneer was honest Fumesucker Feb 2015 #180

Smirk and sneer? nt MADem Feb 2015 #192

... Fumesucker Feb 2015 #202

Smirk was smart--he was smart enough to steal an election and keep power for eight years. MADem Feb 2015 #206

She's also the most successful cattle futures investor of all time. N/t. Calista241 Feb 2015 #179

lol. "guided by james blair, futures trader & counsel to tyson foods" ND-Dem Feb 2015 #188

Who has his own 1000% ROI in less than 10 months to show as well right? Calista241 Feb 2015 #189

and blair in turn had help from... ND-Dem Feb 2015 #195

First time trader, HRC turns $1,000 into $109,600 - it's a Cattle Futures Miracle! Divernan Feb 2015 #205

:^) ND-Dem Feb 2015 #210

Of course she is. And her agenda is corporatist and predatory. woo me with science Feb 2015 #181

The thing that really struck me about the "Clinton dynasty" talking point was ... planetc Feb 2015 #185

Fair enough. Though it would be nice if the Democratic Party's standard-bearer was a Democrat. n/t backscatter712 Feb 2015 #186

The Clintons are a dynasty. Orsino Feb 2015 #190

and clinton married into another office-holding political family with money, which widens the ND-Dem Feb 2015 #194

Chelsea's father in law still owes nearly $10 million to his fraud victims. Divernan Feb 2015 #207

The in-laws still appear to be living the life of wealth and connections, however. I don't ND-Dem Feb 2015 #209

How can it be a dynasty when she hasn't even been elected yet? n/t pnwmom Feb 2015 #212

It can't. Agschmid Feb 2015 #216

And yet she's already nearly anointed. Orsino Feb 2015 #219

She's not... Agschmid Feb 2015 #220

A distinction without a difference in my book. n/t Throd Feb 2015 #200

Dynasty Schmynasty, the problem is she isn't just a member of the Oligarchy but TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #217

+1000000 woo me with science Feb 2015 #225

+1 LWolf Feb 2015 #234

Taking away another meme. How dare you! William769 Feb 2015 #226

Politics is all about who you know. alarimer Feb 2015 #236