Trump betting is a boon for business
Poll
 | 6 votes (30%) | ||
| | 2 votes (10%) | ||
| | 8 votes (40%) | ||
| | 4 votes (20%) | ||
| | 8 votes (40%) | ||
| | 6 votes (30%) | ||
| | 2 votes (10%) | ||
| | 3 votes (15%) | ||
| | 4 votes (20%) | ||
| | 4 votes (20%) |
20 members have voted
I was curious what all the bets were so found a whole bunch of them on Paddy Power. However, one they didn't have is one I have with a few people -- Will Donald Trump be president on January 19, 2020? NO EXCEPTIONS as to the reason he may not be president -- including, but not limited to, death, impeachment, resignation, or cause majeure.
The question for the poll is what do you think will happen to the Donald?
Real tests with Iran and North Korea coming soon though. It will be interesting to see if the lives of American troops on the ground are put in harms way.
Quote: ams288Complete first term and lose reelection.
I think that is the most likely outcome too.
And to the person who voted "That's not how you spell majeure, Wiz," how are you supposed to spell it?
Quote: djatcI want action on trump completing 4 years as president
I'll go $100 at +300 that he won't be President Jan 20, 2021.
Quote: ParadigmWait, you want to bet $100 to win $300 if Trump isn't re-elected? Or am I reading your post incorrectly?
You know me. I suck at phrasing bets.
I meant to include all reasons that could happen, including not being re-elected, which would result in another person being president that day at noon.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'll go $100 at +300 that he won't be President Jan 20, 2021.
I should get odds since trump is most likely gonna be 86ed from the white house
Quote: djatcI should get odds since trump is most likely gonna be 86ed from the white house
Nope. No President has ever been 86'd. 4 have been assassinated, which might count as an 86, but everybody completed their term, resigned, or left feet first.
Out of 45, only ~6 have run again and lost. I'm not counting Cleveland: he lost and won again. ~20 have 2 terms, so I'm giving you a break. (I'm out and about so just did a quick scan of the list)
Trump has already filed for re-election (supposedly so he can collect contributions) so he intends to run.
He has huuuuuge name recognition which will only grow with 4 years of breathless coverage. People vote for celebrities.
Quote: beachbumbabsPeople vote for celebrities.
Would you take an even money bet that Trump will win, assuming he runs? I'll take the no. If he doesn't run, for any reason, including not being alive, then the bet shall have no action.
It wasn't me, but I'm sure it got a vote only because it was one of your goofy extra options.Quote: WizardAnd to the person who voted "That's not how you spell majeure, Wiz," how are you supposed to spell it?
Quote: beachbumbabsNope. No President has ever been 86'd. 4 have been assassinated, which might count as an 86, but everybody completed their term, resigned, or left feet first.
Out of 45, only ~6 have run again and lost. I'm not counting Cleveland: he lost and won again. ~20 have 2 terms, so I'm giving you a break. (I'm out and about so just did a quick scan of the list)
Trump has already filed for re-election (supposedly so he can collect contributions) so he intends to run.
He has huuuuuge name recognition which will only grow with 4 years of breathless coverage. People vote for celebrities.
This is probably the first president of this type ever. He's very polarizing, and while the Republicans have control of the house and senate, it's only going to be for a short 2 years until the Democrats get some seats. Then he's gonna be gonzo.
Wait a minute what about this Nixon feller? Didn't he resign?
Quote: ams288Complete first term and lose reelection.
Me too. There's also a chance he completes and steps aside or is ousted via primaries.
If the Dems were not so abjectly retarded, this would be a great side. But they will probably run another elitist souless robo-shill in the Kerry/Gore/Hillary mode. "Most Electable." Loses every election.
These are the people who lost to GW twice.
Quote: WizardWould you take an even money bet that Trump will win, assuming he runs? I'll take the no. If he doesn't run, for any reason, including not being alive, then the bet shall have no action.
I can't. I dislike him so intensely I couldn't take the yes at any odds. I'd like to be dispassionate about it, because it's not a bad offer, but I just can't in this particular case. Thanks for offering, though.
I would go with you on the no, should someone else be interested in taking the yes.
Quote: beachbumbabsI can't. I dislike him so intensely I couldn't take the yes at any odds. I'd like to be dispassionate about it, because it's not a bad offer, but I just can't in this particular case. Thanks for offering, though.
I would go with you on the no, should someone else be interested in taking the yes.
At least you are allowed to dislike him, because of his policies. When we admitted we disliked Obama, naturally it had nothing to do with polices, only because we were racist and didn't accept a black man as President. Not sure how that played into my dislike of Reid and Pelosi, but somehow the left had an answer for that too.
Quote: djatcThis is probably the first president of this type ever. He's very polarizing, and while the Republicans have control of the house and senate, it's only going to be for a short 2 years until the Democrats get some seats. Then he's gonna be gonzo.
Wait a minute what about this Nixon feller? Didn't he resign?
My first paragraph: "...everybody completed their term, resigned, or left feet first."
The Democrats are in complete disarray. The progressives are taking over because the middle lost. I don't know who will emerge, but they will likely fragment into group politics; it's going to take an extraordinary individual to put together a coalition. I don't know who that might be.
Candidates: Cory Booker will lead the blacks, one of the Castro brothers the Hispanics, Elizabeth Warren the women, though I don't think she'll run. Bernie will be too old, as will Hillary. Maybe Gillibrand from NY or Kamala Harris of CA will emerge. If AL Franken runs, he will be the first Jewish President. He's actually my choice among those folks. Brilliant, tough, funny, unafraid. In fact, if he declares, I will go work for him. Can't say the same about anyone else on either side at the moment, though If Kasich challenges 45 in the primary, i might well reconsider.
Re:2018. Congressional districts are so gerrymandered in favor of Republicans that it takes a dead girl or a live boy in their bed before they get vulnerable. And please don't anybody try to spin that away; Republicans have worked hard getting elected to local and state offices for more than 30 years specifically to make that happen. They should get credit for their success.
And it's a bad year for Senate democrats as well. I expect they'll do well just to hold Republican seats to 52. There are 4 very vulnerable Dem seats in red states, with no comparable offset. So I think the Congress will stay Rep in both houses in 2018, then flip in 2020.
All JMHO
Quote: BozAt least you are allowed to dislike him, because of his policies. When we admitted we disliked Obama, naturally it had nothing to do with polices, only because we were racist and didn't accept a black man as President. Not sure how that played into my dislike of Reid and Pelosi, but somehow the left had an answer for that too.
Allowed? I don't tell you or anybody what to think, and it's not up to you or them what I think. Just because they throw labels at you doesn't mean you have to paste them on.
If you couldn't articulate your differences or concerns on policy issues, then maybe you had a hidden agenda. But, knowing you a little, I doubt that was the case.
So it goes back on those who can't recognize the legitimacy of your argument or pov, who live perhaps in the land of sound bytes rather than nuance, or are intellectually lazy enough to pigeonhole you into a convenient corner rather than discuss your objections on the merits. Their problem, not yours.
The lack of truly candid conversations about matters of substance, and people willing to listen, synthesize, collaborate , and acknowledge common cause in reaching solutions, will be the death of this country. Most of the thoughtful dedicated people I've known have walked away, replaced by posturing, ambitious, power-hungry shallow poseurs.
This is why we have GOT to get the money out of politics. Our republic is at the breaking point. We are not represented any longer; we're leveraged for personal gain.
Quote: beachbumbabsAllowed? I don't tell you or anybody what to think, and it's not up to you or them what I think. Just because they throw labels at you doesn't mean you have to paste them on.
If you couldn't articulate your differences or concerns on policy issues, then maybe you had a hidden agenda. But, knowing you a little, I doubt that was the case.
I see the issue as one where many cannot express their thoughts on policy anymore. At least if you are in any position where you have financial interests at stake. While some say you should keep politics out of your business, there is a penalty in today environment if you are a Trump backer and you risk losing business by stating it. And it was like that to some degree with Obama. The left and the media made it out that you were racist (see the Tea Party) if you were against Obama. So why would you even risk trying to explain why you were against his policies? And why would you try to express your support for the ideas Trump has put out there? Even if you feel they are the right way for not just yourself, but for the country?
I would love to promote today that we are OPEN for business, like every other day. Why, because I operate a legal legitimate business, hire only documented legal employees, as everyone should. Yet we have restaurants closed in Philadelphia today because the immigrants are taking the day off to show we need them. All good and fine if you are here legally, but if you are an Illegal Criminal Alien (not undocumented worker as the left likes to call them) you shouldn't have a job here to start with. And YES, I believe we should heavily fine any business that hires illegal aliens. E-verify needs to be used under the risk of heavy penalty. And when we are at 0% Unemployment & Public Assistance of able bodied people, tell me they are doing jobs "Americans" wont.
But you can't do it without the risk of upsetting someone. This country has become way too sensitive. And I blame the pansy ass bleeding heart liberals. And if you know me even a little, you wouldn't expect anything else from me.
Quote: ParadigmWe apologize for our technical difficulties....somehow the "Trumps First 100 Days" & this thread's "wires got crossed"...now back to the betting ;-)
Sorry about that. I was articulating my reasons for setting my odds and got carried away. Still +300 without counter-argument so far.
Quote: ParadigmYeah, I just don't think +300 for a "NO" on Trump's re-election makes much sense. Wiz and everyone here seem to think this is the most likely outcome after Trump's first term. Normally the favorite/"most likely" outcome isn't priced at +300.
They may drag him kicking and screaming from the White House, but he will fight so hard he'll leave fingernails in the colonnades. He won't resign.
There won't be a Democratic Senate until 2020, if then, so impeachment will get a lot of discussion, but McConnell won't let it go forward (his price was his wife in the Cabinet ). It's an enormous task that would take years even if it got started. It took 900 days to investigate and hold hearings to impeach Nixon, ending with his resignation just prior to the obvious. Clinton was impeached and censured, but still finished his term, after years of allegations and investigation.
Some people like him and what he's doing; his support is solidly in the 40's and rising according to two polls released yesterday. It doesn't take much more, especially if the opposition is still fragmented.
And, as I detailed earlier, history is heavily on his side for re-election. Will he make it thru a second term? Not a chance. But things are in his favor right now to get a second term.
People underestimate populism. Trump is angering a lot of people, but he is inspiring many loyal supporters. The same people here who are saying he has no chance of re-election are the same ones who not that long ago scoffed at those of us who were certain he would be the next President, citing numbers instead of the flow of the country.
All it will take is some good economic turnarounds and Trump will be hailed as a hero. So far he has accomplished a lot, and he has the chance to accomplish more once the supreme court is on his side.
All I know is 6 months ago everyone on here was mocking those of us who were certain of a Trump Presidency, and they are now the same ones who are scoffing at his re-election. Again, we will see. I think America is on the rise, and as it booms with Trump his re-election will be more certain than ever.
As for betting, I would bet on a second term, but I refuse to bet on politics, because if a better candidate comes along I do not want to vote against my own interests.
I agree with Babs that Franken is probably a strong option, though I don't know how old he is. Trump was unpopular from day one, and remains so. He happened to run into a person who was almost as unpopular as he is, who also ran an unimaginably bad campaign.
On the other hand, he is somewhat insulated from criticism because the media have already discredited themselves so deeply, and will continue to do so. I think a lot of the hysteria about Trump, comparing him to Hitler or David Duke, helps him
On the third hand, after blocking TPP, Trump is turning around on economic populism. Removing regulations on banks, anti-corruption laws for oil companies, surrounding himself with Goldman Sachs people. More than anything, his supporters are expecting him to stand up for their economic interests.
Also, there are reports Trump hates his job. One reason I bet against him in the primaries was I wasn't sure he even wanted it.
It will depend on how determined the Dems are to lose. With the exception of Obama (who they didn't even want initially, as he forestalled their dream of losing with Hillary) their commitment to losing at every level has been relentless for years.
WILL TRUMP COMPLETE HIS 1ST TERM IN OFFICE?
YES 1/2 (-200)
NO 6/4 (+150)
I want YES. Can anyone beat -200?
Some more likely bets to happen:
Trump to announce that aliens lifeforms exist 20/1
AN AMERICAN STATE TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE IN 2017
Yes 20/1
WHAT WILL TRUMP BAN DURING HIS 1ST TERM
Stairs 500/1
WILL TRUMP LEGALISE GAMBLING IN HIS 1ST TERM?|
Yes 20/1
WHICH LEADER LASTS LONGER - JONG-UN OR TRUMP
Kim Jong-un 4/11
Donald Trump 17/10
Quote: RSStairs should be banned.
Ban Stairs
Unban online gambling
Make America great again
Quote: RigondeauxHe was a huge dog. Sometimes huge dogs hit, or else we'd all be rich.
I agree with Babs that Franken is probably a strong option, though I don't know how old he is.
He's 65 now. Born in NYC, moved to Minnesota when he was 4. Grew up there, started in Mpls comedy and improv clubs, then LA and NYC, starting in the early 70's. Moved back around 2005. Got into politics directly because of the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone in a regrettable, preventable plane crash (sidebar discussion), his good friend and possibly mentor.
Snip.
Quote:On the other hand, he is somewhat insulated from criticism because the media have already discredited themselves so deeply, and will continue to do so. I think a lot of the hysteria about Trump, comparing him to Hitler or David Duke, helps him
I have to disagree with you about the media being discredited. The vast majority of media reporting has been first-hand. Negative reports have nearly always been self-inflicted wounds, with his minions scrambling to translate and clean up after him. They don't have to make anything up; he's been a gold mine of lies and contradictory statements.
He would LIKE the media to be discredited, and does everything in his power, through constant repetition and favoring those he thinks favor him, in question acceptance and granting of interviews. There are people who agree with him about the bias.
But the reporting has been carefully fact-based. It must be separated from opinion pieces and spin from all sides, which requires discernment and knowledge from the public; they've made that part much harder, with the blurring of news and commentary to reflect corporate news viewpoints. But the facts can be identified with patience.
Quote:
On the third hand, after blocking TPP, Trump is turning around on economic populism. Removing regulations on banks, anti-corruption laws for oil companies, surrounding himself with Goldman Sachs people. More than anything, his supporters are expecting him to stand up for their economic interests.
This is a great danger for him, servicing the banks, the rich, and corporate interests at the expense of the workers that put him into office. I think they're going to look around in about 6 months, with inflation, gas prices, mortgage interest rates all rising, consumer protections stripped, health insurance disrupted, continued job stagnation, income tax increase, medicare and social security threatened, and say, we've been had. Maybe they'll give him a year. But not much more: he's throwing things out of balance that needed to be supported with steady patience.
Quote:Also, there are reports Trump hates his job. One reason I bet against him in the primaries was I wasn't sure he even wanted it.
I agree with you; I don't think he does like it. I don't think he really wanted it; I think he got caught up in the ego trip, but he's not there to serve anyone but himself. And it is about service; the President works for us.
Trump doesn't have any concept about governing; he thought it was about the most superficial stuff, like press conferences, public announcements, situation room drama, state dinners, being the decider guy after everybody else does the hard work gathering, distilling, writing and presenting one issue after the next. He's a second-hander, intellectually speaking: he doesn't care about background, context, complexity, or consequences. He doesn't do the homework.
The exaggeration of the size of his win today was a perfect example. He claimed it was the biggest EC win since Reagan. A reporter challenged him, starting with Obama numbers (which were larger). He said I meant Republicans. The reporter said HW had over 400 EC votes. Trump said, well, somebody told me that. I don't know; I was told that. (Why did he say it if it wasnt true?? Another unforced error. He was speaking from notes; he seems to have planned to say this)
The reporter's actual question (the EC fact check was the intro) was talked over by Trump arguing the numbers, but it was, "if you don't give us accurate and honest info on things as basic as this, how is the public supposed to trust what you say..." . He got cut off, then that part ignored. That ESSENTIAL question never got addressed.
The really odd thing is that he's said this before, several times since the election, it was incorrect, and NOBODY on his staff corrected him all those times. What the hell are they doing, letting him say something ignorant repeatedly?
This was just one episode in dozens, but illustrates very well how he thinks, what he says, and how he deflects. It's frightening the size and scope of the bubble he's living in. Made much worse by who he's surrounded himself with.
Quote:It will depend on how determined the Dems are to lose. With the exception of Obama (who they didn't even want initially, as he forestalled their dream of losing with Hillary) their commitment to losing at every level has been relentless for years.
Dems have a weird sense of propriety about whose "turn" it is. However, Bernie was in fact a Democrat by convenience, not temperament. I think joining the party just to run was a bit disingenuous, after decades as an Independent. As bad as Trump is, Bernie would have been worse policy wise, though I don't think he's the compulsive liar Trump is.
I worked for Obama 2012 for over a year. I did that because of my anger over voter registration shenanigans in Florida, and the csmpaign and the NAACP were the only 2 doing registrations, with the governor working hard to restrict it and disenfranchise targeted groups. Too hard for the League of Women Voters, the DMV, the other usual agencies to navigate the roadblock regulations. Most of my work concentrated on that aspect, coloring within the lines under heavy scrutiny.
The Hillary 2016 campaign begged me numerous times to come back and work, offering a paid position, anything i wanted to do. I didn't go. That alone should indicate how much I supported her as a candidate (reluctantly). She was still a better choice than Trump on policy, but that doesn't matter any more. Gore was awful. Kerry was awful. I don't know who would have been better, but GWB was a disaster, enough so that he's been disowned by his own party, not just the opposition.
Edit: I suppose I've wandered off course again, but all this stuff is relevant to setting odds on a bet like this, at least to me. Interesting that djatc shows Paddy power agrees the NO is a dog. I just think their odds are too low.
Quote: beachbumbabsAnd, as I detailed earlier, history is heavily on his side for re-election. Will he make it thru a second term? Not a chance. But things are in his favor right now to get a second term.
"not a chance" odds are at least 14-1, given that a Safety in the SB, which "has a chance", goes off at around 7-1. What you are offering on the "Yes - Trump is re-elected and serves his complete second term"....remember, there is not a chance this happens so this will be easy money for you.
Quote: Paradigm"not a chance" odds are at least 14-1, given that a Safety in the SB, which "has a chance", goes off at around 7-1. What you are offering on the "Yes - Trump is re-elected and serves his complete second term"....remember, there is not a chance this happens so this will be easy money for you.
- 600. $100 on it. In dollars current to the point the bet resolves.
Edit : I think I said this wrong. Told you I sucked at it. Your 100 on yes he will complete 2 full terms, no exceptions including death, my 600 that he will not. Or lesser increments equivalent to that.
Bet resolves no later than Jan 21, 2025.
Quote: ParadigmSo "no chance" means less odds than a Safety occurring in the SB?
That's what I'm willing to risk. Up to you if you want to accept the bet. Your goading will not change my offer. :)
Quote: beachbumbabsHe's 65 now. Born in NYC, moved to Minnesota when he was 4. Grew up there, started in Mpls comedy and improv clubs, then LA and NYC, starting in the early 70's. Moved back around 2005. Got into politics directly because of the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone in a regrettable, preventable plane crash (sidebar discussion), his good friend and possibly mentor.
Snip.
I have to disagree with you about the media being discredited. The vast majority of media reporting has been first-hand. Negative reports have nearly always been self-inflicted wounds, with his minions scrambling to translate and clean up after him. They don't have to make anything up; he's been a gold mine of lies and contradictory statements.
He would LIKE the media to be discredited, and does everything in his power, through constant repetition and favoring those he thinks favor him, in question acceptance and granting of interviews. There are people who agree with him about the bias.
But the reporting has been carefully fact-based. It must be separated from opinion pieces and spin from all sides, which requires discernment and knowledge from the public; they've made that part much harder, with the blurring of news and commentary to reflect corporate news viewpoints. But the facts can be identified with patience.
This is a great danger for him, servicing the banks, the rich, and corporate interests at the expense of the workers that put him into office. I think they're going to look around in about 6 months, with inflation, gas prices, mortgage interest rates all rising, consumer protections stripped, health insurance disrupted, continued job stagnation, income tax increase, medicare and social security threatened, and say, we've been had. Maybe they'll give him a year. But not much more: he's throwing things out of balance that needed to be supported with steady patience.
I agree with you; I don't think he does like it. I don't think he really wanted it; I think he got caught up in the ego trip, but he's not there to serve anyone but himself. And it is about service; the President works for us.
Trump doesn't have any concept about governing; he thought it was about the most superficial stuff, like press conferences, public announcements, situation room drama, state dinners, being the decider guy after everybody else does the hard work gathering, distilling, writing and presenting one issue after the next. He's a second-hander, intellectually speaking: he doesn't care about background, context, complexity, or consequences. He doesn't do the homework.
The exaggeration of the size of his win today was a perfect example. He claimed it was the biggest EC win since Reagan. A reporter challenged him, starting with Obama numbers (which were larger). He said I meant Republicans. The reporter said HW had over 400 EC votes. Trump said, well, somebody told me that. I don't know; I was told that. (Why did he say it if it wasnt true?? Another unforced error. He was speaking from notes; he seems to have planned to say this)
The reporter's actual question (the EC fact check was the intro) was talked over by Trump arguing the numbers, but it was, "if you don't give us accurate and honest info on things as basic as this, how is the public supposed to trust what you say..." . He got cut off, then that part ignored. That ESSENTIAL question never got addressed.
The really odd thing is that he's said this before, several times since the election, it was incorrect, and NOBODY on his staff corrected him all those times. What the hell are they doing, letting him say something ignorant repeatedly?
This was just one episode in dozens, but illustrates very well how he thinks, what he says, and how he deflects. It's frightening the size and scope of the bubble he's living in. Made much worse by who he's surrounded himself with.
Dems have a weird sense of propriety about whose "turn" it is. However, Bernie was in fact a Democrat by convenience, not temperament. I think joining the party just to run was a bit disingenuous, after decades as an Independent. As bad as Trump is, Bernie would have been worse policy wise, though I don't think he's the compulsive liar Trump is.
I worked for Obama 2012 for over a year. I did that because of my anger over voter registration shenanigans in Florida, and the csmpaign and the NAACP were the only 2 doing registrations, with the governor working hard to restrict it and disenfranchise targeted groups. Too hard for the League of Women Voters, the DMV, the other usual agencies to navigate the roadblock regulations. Most of my work concentrated on that aspect, coloring within the lines under heavy scrutiny.
The Hillary 2016 campaign begged me numerous times to come back and work, offering a paid position, anything i wanted to do. I didn't go. That alone should indicate how much I supported her as a candidate (reluctantly). She was still a better choice than Trump on policy, but that doesn't matter any more. Gore was awful. Kerry was awful. I don't know who would have been better, but GWB was a disaster, enough so that he's been disowned by his own party, not just the opposition.
Edit: I suppose I've wandered off course again, but all this stuff is relevant to setting odds on a bet like this, at least to me. Interesting that djatc shows Paddy power agrees the NO is a dog. I just think their odds are too low.
Franken will be old then, but younger than Trump. I don't know a ton about him, though I read one of his books. The main thing, is he has had a life that is in someway connected to the world of mortals. He was very successful, but comedy writers still know how to pump their own gas and share in most normal fears and anxieties. Plus, he is self made. In these ways, he is like both recent Dem winners, Obama and Bill.
The Dems seem to prefer people who have been ultra rich and connected for most of their lives, and haven't bought groceries or had a care in the world for decades (Kerry, Gore, Hill).
I think Franken really has concern for ordinary people, or he is very good at faking it. Unlike all of the losers.
As for the media, there are many examples. I've always had some issues with NPR, but been a donor. Now, I cant listen. All of this hysteria about "fake news." Tons of race baiting. For example, the media have made Richard Spenser, a formerly total unknown who would speak before dozens of followers on a good day, into a national celebrity. They also give David Duke a platform at every opportunity. As though they represent the views of a significant segment of the population.
Then there's this sudden zeal for reigniting the cold war. Nonsense about Russia "hacking the election." Even if they published e-mails (unproven) ALL THEY DID was make more information available to the public. Accurate, factual info. It's not the dems fault they rigged the debates. Blame rests with the people who caught them doing it. What an absurd narrative.
Recently, a Time writer falsely claimed that Trump removed the bust of MLK. IDK, maybe I'm wrong, but my sense was that his career did not end on the spot.
Imagine a mainstream journo completely fabricating a story that Obama had done something like that (IDK, putting up a portrait of Farakahn, say). He would be history.
I agree, there's a lot of really bad stuff to report on Trump. We don't have a legitimate news media capable of doing so.
IIRC, the onion posted a story about McCain(?) in the 2008 election, saying he wanted to ban Instagram and thought how bad it was because he thought it was some tool or service to weigh drugs (insta as in instantly, gram as in measurement of drugs). And I remember a lot of people thinking the article was real. And this was on a website that tells you it's fake......but people still ate it up.
Only website I really trust like 99% of the time is snopes. I hate reading through a million articles that are pretty vague about an issue.
For starters, can someone explain how the Russians (I guess, supposedly?) hacked into our voting system and changed votes from Clinton to Trump.....or whatever this "hacking" entails?
Quote: RSFor starters, can someone explain how the Russians (I guess, supposedly?) hacked into our voting system and changed votes from Clinton to Trump.....or whatever this "hacking" entails?
The Russian hacking had nothing to do with Russians "changing votes from Clinton to Trump."
I'm sure you could find some leftist blogger or something who thinks that, but no one with any credibility believes it.
Quote: beachbumbabsThat's what I'm willing to risk. Up to you if you want to accept the bet. Your goading will not change my offer. :)
I think your +600 offer is a fair one...it just isn't consistent with your previous "No Chance" statement. I would take you up on it, except a bet that takes me 8 years to win is beyond my patience limit. I could make seven SB Safety prop bets between now and then and get better action ;-).
Quote: ams288The Russian hacking had nothing to do with Russians "changing votes from Clinton to Trump."
I'm sure you could find some leftist blogger or something who thinks that, but no one with any credibility believes it.
The confusion illustrates my point. Saying the Russians hacked the election suggests just that they changed votes, or something of that nature.
What actually happened: someone, MAYBE Russians, published e-mails in which the DNC looked really bad, because they were being really bad.
Someone did the same thing to Sarah Palin, IIRC. Also, about a million other people.
But, when it happens to the media darling, Murdering Hillary, "the Russians hacked the election!!!"
It all gets to the central issue with much of this, which is why the media are incapable of reporting on Trump properly, and also why he got elected. While elite interests are always pitted against popular, our elites have just gone completely bananas.
In other words, the bad stuff about Trump, is also stuff that most media and dems more or less agree with. The media focus is on hysteria, division and also this weird "a plus student" sense of propriety. Hammering Trump for not being circumspect about what phone calls he takes, or using bathroom towels that were meant to be decorative.
There's only so much they can say about things like him handing over power to big business, because both parties do that, and the reporters either already do, or dream of, going to the same retreats in Aspen and getting the same speaking fees that are used to buy off politicians.
A large part of the reason they hate Trump so much is his populism. But the biggest reason, obviously, is he proved their power is fading, which is one of the silver linings of it all.
Quote: ams288The Russian hacking had nothing to do with Russians "changing votes from Clinton to Trump."
I'm sure you could find some leftist blogger or something who thinks that, but no one with any credibility believes it.
In other words: Nobody hacked the election.
Quote: ams288The Russian hacking had nothing to do with Russians "changing votes from Clinton to Trump."
I'm sure you could find some leftist blogger or something who thinks that, but no one with any credibility believes it.
The truth is many on the left feel Hillary lost because the Russians or whomever swayed the voting public away from her based on the leaks.
To me the bigger issue is how crooked and stupid the DNC was. You had the leader working to hurt one candidate (Bernie) in every way possible, though she may have been just doing her job as most thought at the time Hillary was the much better candidate. If Podesta used "password" as his password as has been reported, he is an idiot.
No doubt there is crooked stuff on both sides, but many feel this information hurt Hillary. I believe it was only part of a bigger story that got Trump elected. Even if you believe he was the worst candidate ever, she definitely ran the worst campaign ever. The hacking was only a small part of that.
