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

beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 77
  • Posts: 9230
February 16th, 2017 at 4:48:13 PM permalink
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.
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 2052
February 16th, 2017 at 6:21:42 PM permalink
So "no chance" means less odds than a Safety occurring in the SB?
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 77
  • Posts: 9230
February 16th, 2017 at 6:26:34 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

So "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. :)
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 1060
February 17th, 2017 at 2:49:55 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

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.




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.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 5558
February 17th, 2017 at 4:00:43 AM permalink
I don't like all this media bull****. Can't figure out what's true and what's completely made up. Not sure if it's because with age comes wisdom or something wonky like that, or this stuff started happening much more somewhat recently, or the increase in social media, but all this fake stuff being posted started to bug me probably starting a few years ago.

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?
"should of played 'Go Fish' today ya peasant" -typoontrav
ams288
ams288
Joined: Sep 26, 2012
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 3057
February 17th, 2017 at 5:20:51 AM permalink
Quote: RS

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?



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.
The geniuses who thought HRC was running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza shop just can't connect the dots on all this trump-Russia stuff....
Paradigm
Paradigm
Joined: Feb 24, 2011
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 2052
February 17th, 2017 at 10:48:37 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

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. :)


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 ;-).
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 1060
February 17th, 2017 at 11:51:37 AM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.



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.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 5558
Thanks for this post from:
BozRigondeaux
February 17th, 2017 at 1:32:24 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.


In other words: Nobody hacked the election.
"should of played 'Go Fish' today ya peasant" -typoontrav
Boz
Boz
Joined: Sep 22, 2011
  • Threads: 138
  • Posts: 3641
February 17th, 2017 at 1:43:34 PM permalink
Quote: ams288

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.



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.

  • Jump to: