So both of you just said:

"All this smoke there's gotta be fire"

"Each time failed to show actual wrongdoing"

You guys actually believe this?

hahahahahahahahahahaha

I mean you haven't shown any evidence of wrongdoing. You seem to admit that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. Yet you're sure she GOT AWAY WITH IT. Seems crazy bro.

No, I think the people responsible for that decision want Bill/Hillary to like them/think they are good people and donating to the foundation that the Clintons clearly believe in is a great way to do that while also helping the world's poor. And yes, Bill/Hillary thinking well of these people may be beneficial to them in some way in the future.

that was sarcasm don't you people understand sarcasm?

That domer's case for wrongdoing rests upon a calculation of probability to which none of us have access to review for validity rather than, you know, actual evidence of what Hillary did that was unlawful is pretty much all the evidence we need no give no further ****s.

Much less crazy then thinking a one in 31T shot is "unlikely." If you accept the journal papers conclusion then you conclude that she was given the money.

I feel like Trump hasn't done anything crazy for like a day. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention? This is weird--it's like I need my fix of bat**** lulz or something. Anybody?

Clark,

I met a guy at a bar one time and he disagrees with you

Here came out with the Muslim immigration stuff yesterday right? Muslims have to support gay rights to get into the country.

Did he forgot he picked Mike Pence as VP?

Maybe they are laying low hoping people don't Google "Mike Pence" for a day.

I've not seen the paper and I suspect you haven't either. The 1 in 31T number seems completely absurd for 100x results in a volatile futures market. So I suspect the paper is hot garbage.

And she was getting advice from a big time successful futures trader. And her account should have been repeatedly margin called but wasn't because that dude vouched for her. Easy to believe this dude's advice gave her some sort of edge.

Do you accept the paper's conclusion or are you just parroting it again while taking no responsibility for the non-sense you are spewing?

I'm going to go ahead and assume the odds her making a 100x in essentially legalized gambling are much closer to 100:1 + vig than 31 trillion to 1.

I didn't read the paper and likely not qualified to judge it. I mostly wanted to give you a little insight into how a 100 to 1 payoff could be so unlikely. I didn't mean to beat this dead horse again.

I...

I just....

Dude you wrote both of those paragraphs back to back!

You are going to accuse others of parroting nonsense, then you are going to "assume" the odds are closer to 100:1 than 31T:1.

To write both of those paragraphs shows a level of cognitive dissonance few are capable of.

Uh, it's not cognitive dissonance to be skeptical of an extreme claim from a line of work fraught with pitfalls when that claim hasn't been explained or verified to us in any way. Yes, it passed peer review, but so did a considerable amount of bull****.

It's staggering the amount of effort one has to go through to sort through this muck and figure out who is telling the truth, how corrupt someone is, what policies will be enacted by whom once elected, the impacts of certain policies on certain groups of people or the environment or the economy, and everything else in this arena. And if we're being honest, most politically aware people STILL don't TRULY know the answers to many of the relevant questions. It's just so ****ed.

What are you on about? If Billy goes to the casino and turns his 1 to 100, I'm going to assume the odds of him doing that legitimately are much closer to 100 to 1 than some trillion to one long shot using something called logic and reason. Anyone trying to claim it is closer to a trillion to one is clearly trying to confuse via complexity.

Yea no difference from being skeptical and saying, I'm going to just assume A, because I don't believe counter arguments are worth reading.

stay woke

According to this: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...futures_market

The publication has been cited literally zero times in subsequent academic literature. Like, not even a self-citation where these guys refer to prior work to build up their new publications. Granted, maybe this website is inaccurate, but I no longer have access to Web of Science. I'd still rather read the actual article, but there's not a lot to suggest it's high quality research.

The RWNJ who posted it has not read it either. What is your counter-argument to the extremely clear and logical argument that the odds of making 100:1 in legalized gambling legitimately is not wildly different from 100:1 + vig?

It seems absurd to me to assume they are off by several orders of magnitude (several several, really) without reading it.

I would call that the definition of parroting nonsense.

I'm sure Hillary is just sharp with bovine futures tho.

Shrug, take time out of your day in a non swing state and vote Hillary

Technically, there's a huge margin of error to be "a lot closer to 100:1" than 31 trillion to one. Like, if it was 15 trillion to one, that is still waaaaaaaaaaay closer to 100:1 than it is to 31 trillion: 1.

Ironically, 31 trillion: 1 *is* the precise odds of my ever reading that study.

Glad I could help!

It seems pretty sane to assume that the paper is engaging in manipulation and adding unnecessary variables. Without reading, Lou already gave us one with the up/down market variable. Sure the odds may be 100:1 in a vacuum, but what are the odds of her winning 100:1 AND there also being a full moon?????

Note this is exactly the goal of the RWNJs. Hillary probably did have some industry insider info that helped her tilt the 100:1 shot in her favor and the gullibles like LL (former Trumpkin) thinks well that is the best case scenario and I think that is shady and don't like it one bit! Meanwhile Lou and his RWNJs buddies are trading similar stock tips on the golf course and laughing their asses off that they manipulated the gullible Trumpkins to pay minimal taxes on their gains.