Trump's Second and Third year in office
Not when you dump the Dow 30 out of the analysis...no one pays attention to that index as a broad indicator...it's only 30 stocks. S&P500 is up 2% YTD not including another 1%+ of divvy's...I'll take it after a 21%+ return the prior year, but call 23%+ over 17 months a "mixed bag" if you want. It was up 6% in January as a reaction to the Tax Bill! The Nasdaq Composite has screamed over the last 17 months...just look at your figures since 1/20/17, its up 34% & 6.7% in the 6 months since Tax Reform...a mixed bag?? And who lives in a different world again?Quote: SteverinosIt appears to be a mixed bag of results, doesn't it?
No....it was that the alternative didn't resonated with a lot of voters...you still don't get it do you? Hillary sucked but DJT sucked a lot less, so he won. It really isn't that hard to figure out what happened. I didn't even vote for DJT and I can see that.Quote: Steverinos...businesses have been reaping record profits for quite some time, LONG before DJT arrived. But yet, somehow, his message of America is a cesspool resonated with you all. Interesting.
Clamoring & fighting for something is all well and good...here is the thing, you actually need to achieve results instead of complaining the other side of the aisle won't let you get anything done. Obama had control of both houses in his first two years...as Trump does now. The difference is Trump is getting things done (Regulation Reform, Getting a Tax Deal done that brought BILLIONS of offshore capital back to the US while capturing 15% in taxes (here's a thought Barack, 15% of Billions is a lot more than 35% of $0), border enforcement, opposing/fighting against sanctuary cities/states, repealing the Obamacare Mandate, etc.)...it turns out getting US Corporate capital back onshore, standing up for US Citizens versus illegal immigrants, reducing regulation & taxes to let the big & small businesses thrive and employ more Americans, not forcing socialized health insurance plans down everyone's throat are actually popular with a lot of Americans...who knew?Quote: SteverinosAnd if you knew me at all, you'd know that I've been clamoring for huge infrastructure investments for 10 years. It would be interesting to see republicans all for it in 2018 when they fought for EIGHT YEARS to deny it in the Obama administration (deficits?
I guess we'll find out how popular come November...why do I feel that election is going to be a lot different than the prognosticators think. Are the Dems even going to take control of the House? The Blue Fan Boys here better hope for an economic & political catastrophe before mid September.
Finally, quit putting my name in a quote box and then changing the quote...that's an infantile move and should be listed in the rules as a banned offense. Why is anyone allowed to change someone's words, yet leave the individuals screen name associated with a phrase they did not type? BBB please have the Wiz confirm he is OK with this type of conduct as I know he won't spend anytime in the cesspool that is this thread. I know I won't be back for a while.
Steverinos, you provided REAL facts. AZDuffman provided "alternative" facts... seems to be all the GOP is concerned with.Quote: SteverinosYeah, there's really no comparison. You live in a different world.
http://projects.thestar.com/donald-trump-fact-check/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
Quote: ParadigmObama had control of both houses in his first two years...as Trump does now.
Obama had a filibuster proof majority for, at most estimates, four months throughout his presidency. Think Franken special election, Kennedy on his death bed, and Spector caucusing with the democrats. And then it's worth mentioning that the Republicans continued to obstruct and abandon their OWN ideas that they had championed for decades in order to try to keep the country from recovering from the worst recession in 80 years so they could win elections. That's treason in my book and should not be celebrated...and most definitely not rewarded.
And I agree that the stock market and the economy are moving along just fine. We just disagree where the credit gets distributed, that's all. And yes, I'll still contend that since tax cuts were passed, Trump's only meaningful financial legislation, things have been a little stagnant compared to the year we had before when it was truly his predecessor's economy that he passed onto him. That's why I call it a mixed bag. Positive for sure, but the Nasdaq was up 19% in Obama's final year and all I heard from the republicans during the campaign was that the economy sucked. Now we want to celebrate literally the same economy? Doesn't fly.
I apologize for the quote thing. I made it clear that it was my words by the bold, but I can understand if you took offense. I was just pointing out that your start date was disingenuous. If it's against the rules...duly noted. Hope you come back.
Quote: Paradigm
No....it was that the alternative didn't resonated with a lot of voters...you still don't get it do you? Hillary sucked but DJT sucked a lot less, so he won.
I kind of disagree... He won not because he "sucked less," he won because he was an unknown quantity from a political standpoint.
Hillary was a known factor. She's been in politics for decades. We know what we would get with her, and a lot of people didn't like that. Nobody knew what we would get with Trump. He was a mystery. But people who voted for him would rather take their chances with a mystery than Hillary. They didn't know if it would be better or worse. They were HOPING it would be better, but nobody knew for sure, because Trump had never been in politics before.
Quote: SteverinosObama had a filibuster proof majority for, at most estimates, four months throughout his presidency. Think Franken special election, Kennedy on his death bed, and Spector caucusing with the democrats. And then it's worth mentioning that the Republicans continued to obstruct and abandon their OWN ideas that they had championed for decades in order to try to keep the country from recovering from the worst recession in 80 years so they could win elections. That's treason in my book and should not be celebrated...and most definitely not rewarded.
And I agree that the stock market and the economy are moving along just fine. We just disagree where the credit gets distributed, that's all. And yes, I'll still contend that since tax cuts were passed, Trump's only meaningful financial legislation, things have been a little stagnant compared to the year we had before when it was truly his predecessor's economy that he passed onto him. That's why I call it a mixed bag. Positive for sure, but the Nasdaq was up 19% in Obama's final year and all I heard from the republicans during the campaign was that the economy sucked. Now we want to celebrate literally the same economy? Doesn't fly.
I apologize for the quote thing. I made it clear that it was my words by the bold, but I can understand if you took offense. I was just pointing out that your start date was disingenuous. If it's against the rules...duly noted. Hope you come back.
That word, "treason", I do not think it means what you think it means:
United States Constitution. Article III, §3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Quote: SteverinosObama had a filibuster proof majority for, at most estimates, four months throughout his presidency. Think Franken special election, Kennedy on his death bed, and Spector caucusing with the democrats. And then it's worth mentioning that the Republicans continued to obstruct and abandon their OWN ideas that they had championed for decades in order to try to keep the country from recovering from the worst recession in 80 years so they could win elections. That's treason in my book and should not be celebrated.
Quit the crying. A filibuster-proof majority is a once in a generation thing.
Worst recession in 80 years? I did not realize it had been 80 years since 1958 or 1982. 1982 made 2008 look like a cakewalk.
The GOP just treated Obama the same as Obama treated Bush when he was a Senator. Nothing worse.
If you want to talk about treason, how about Obama suggesting we used to torture people before he got there in front of the world?
Quote: aceofspadesThat word, "treason", I do not think it means what you think it means:
United States Constitution. Article III, §3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Oh geez. Really?
YOU GOT ME!
I think you quoted the wrong guy, by the way.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuit the crying. A filibuster-proof majority is a once in a generation thing.
Worst recession in 80 years? I did not realize it had been 80 years since 1958 or 1982. 1982 made 2008 look like a cakewalk.
The GOP just treated Obama the same as Obama treated Bush when he was a Senator. Nothing worse.
If you want to talk about treason, how about Obama suggesting we used to torture people before he got there in front of the world?
Please show how the Reagan recession was worse than the 2007/2008 one?
Quote: SteverinosAnd then it's worth mentioning that the Republicans continued to obstruct and abandon their OWN ideas that they had championed for decades in order to try to keep the country from recovering from the worst recession in 80 years so they could win elections.
Yeah, I mean Republican leaders literally, explicitly, and publicly stated their number one goal was obstruction of the Obama administration.... haha... I don't know how people can forget that or claim there was no obstructionism.
“We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” -- John Boehner speaking about Obama's agenda
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” -- Mitch Mcconnell
The "single most important thing" for the GOP was not American jobs, or infrastructure, or the economy, or healthcare, or any one of a thousand other things that would actually help people... it was sabotaging Obama so he wouldn't get a second term (which they obviously failed at doing).
Quote:That's why I call it a mixed bag.
I'm almost inclined to agree, but maybe not quite.... 2017 was great, no one can deny that. 2018 is almost halfway over, and things have been a little stagnant. I think we need to finish out 2018 to see how much of a mixed bag it really is.
Quote: SteverinosQuote: aceofspadesThat word, "treason", I do not think it means what you think it means:
United States Constitution. Article III, §3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Oh geez. Really?
YOU GOT ME!
I think you quoted the wrong guy, by the way.
Indeed I did - corrected - now you have full credit :)
Quote: billryanPlease show how the Reagan recession was worse than the 2007/2008 one?
Higher unemployment
Higher inflation (> 10%!)
High interest rates (home mortgages 20%, "incentive" rates on cars 10%)
Quote: TigerWuYeah, I mean Republican leaders literally, explicitly, and publicly stated their number one goal was obstruction of the Obama administration.... haha... I don't know how people can forget that or claim there was no obstructionism.
“We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” -- John Boehner speaking about Obama's agenda
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” -- Mitch Mcconnell
Boo hoo hoo. Like Democrats never said and did the same things. Why should Obama get special treatment?
Quote: AZDuffmanBig deal. An apology for a tweet. Valarie should just get over it. Trump is right to call them out for their double standard. "The View" alone has said things many times worse. .
What has the view said that conservative snow flakes are complaining about?
Quote: ParadigmNot when you dump the Dow 30 out of the analysis...no one pays attention to that index as a broad indicator...it's only 30 stocks. S&P500 is up 2% YTD not including another 1%+ of divvy's...I'll take it after a 21%+ return the prior year, but call 23%+ over 17 months a "mixed bag" if you want. It was up 6% in January as a reaction to the Tax Bill! The Nasdaq Composite has screamed over the last 17 months...just look at your figures since 1/20/17, its up 34% & 6.7% in the 6 months since Tax Reform...a mixed bag?? And who lives in a different world again?
No....it was that the alternative didn't resonated with a lot of voters...you still don't get it do you? Hillary sucked but DJT sucked a lot less, so he won. It really isn't that hard to figure out what happened. I didn't even vote for DJT and I can see that.
Clamoring & fighting for something is all well and good...here is the thing, you actually need to achieve results instead of complaining the other side of the aisle won't let you get anything done. Obama had control of both houses in his first two years...as Trump does now. The difference is Trump is getting things done (Regulation Reform, Getting a Tax Deal done that brought BILLIONS of offshore capital back to the US while capturing 15% in taxes (here's a thought Barack, 15% of Billions is a lot more than 35% of $0), border enforcement, opposing/fighting against sanctuary cities/states, repealing the Obamacare Mandate, etc.)...it turns out getting US Corporate capital back onshore, standing up for US Citizens versus illegal immigrants, reducing regulation & taxes to let the big & small businesses thrive and employ more Americans, not forcing socialized health insurance plans down everyone's throat are actually popular with a lot of Americans...who knew?
I guess we'll find out how popular come November...why do I feel that election is going to be a lot different than the prognosticators think. Are the Dems even going to take control of the House? The Blue Fan Boys here better hope for an economic & political catastrophe before mid September.
Finally, quit putting my name in a quote box and then changing the quote...that's an infantile move and should be listed in the rules as a banned offense. Why is anyone allowed to change someone's words, yet leave the individuals screen name associated with a phrase they did not type? BBB please have the Wiz confirm he is OK with this type of conduct as I know he won't spend anytime in the cesspool that is this thread. I know I won't be back for a while.
Yeah, I'll have him look at it.
I personally have always disliked the oh-so-clever "fixed that for you" so many people use here. Not to mention fake-quoting.
This particular example is not as bad as some, because
a) he does leave your quote intact above, from which this is a repeated excerpt, so that and
b) the bolding of the quote change make it apparent to the reader paying attention. A quick scan, not so much, evendors withe the FTFY note.
It honestly took me 5 minutes of word-by-word comparison of your original post, scrolling up and down, to see what the entire issue was, because i didn't realize he'd quoted both correctly and then incorrectly in the same post.
c) strikeout of the original followed by the "correction" used here sometimes is marginally better, but only just.
I'd like to see the entire practice go away. It's not OK to misquote, mischaracterize, or amend other people's posts.
My preference is for people to quote the point they're refuting, then refute it in text below.
But, it's been accepted here for some time to emphasize in this way, as long as the alteration is somehow acknowledged. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean it can't change. But currently not an offense unless the quote is altered without attribution.
Quote: beachbumbabsYeah, I'll have him look at it.
I personally have always disliked the oh-so-clever "fixed that for you" so many people use here. Not to mention fake-quoting.
This particular example is not as bad as some, because
a) he does leave your quote intact above, from which this is a repeated excerpt, so that and
b) the bolding of the quote change make it apparent to the reader paying attention. A quick scan, not so much, evendors withe the FTFY note.
It honestly took me 5 minutes of word-by-word comparison of your original post, scrolling up and down, to see what the entire issue was, because i didn't realize he'd quoted both correctly and then incorrectly in the same post.
c) strikeout of the original followed by the "correction" used here sometimes is marginally better, but only just.
I'd like to see the entire practice go away. It's not OK to misquote, mischaracterize, or amend other people's posts.
My preference is for people to quote the point they're refuting, then refute it in text below.
But, it's been accepted here for some time to emphasize in this way, as long as the alteration is somehow acknowledged. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't mean it can't change. But currently not an offense unless the quote is altered without attribution.
Babs - along this line - can I get a "ruling" on what I have done in the past where, when I only want to quote a portion of a post (NOT to change the post's meaning (like, I wouldn't excerpt "Nothing about Ace is amazing" and only quote "Ace is amazing"))
But, when I take only the relevant portion of a quote I do so like this:
Quote:*EXCERPT* lorem ipsum
Is that an acceptable practice? Thanks
Quote: aceofspadesBabs - along this line - can I get a "ruling" on what I have done in the past where, when I only want to quote a portion of a post (NOT to change the post's meaning (like, I wouldn't excerpt "Nothing about Ace is amazing" and only quote "Ace is amazing"))
But, when I take only the relevant portion of a quote I do so like this:Quote:*EXCERPT* lorem ipsum
Is that an acceptable practice? Thanks
I think it's acceptable and useful as long as, like you say, it doesn't change the intent of the original.
I also like (snip) and ellipses which indicate excerpts. All make it clear that the quoter is pulling from a longer body of work.
But I think it's insufficient to simply grab a phrase and go with a partial without acknowledging (or it being immediately obvious, like it's the post immediately above yours) that you are addressing an excerpt.
We have had some problems with this before, currently died down, with trolling by misquote or out of context quotes that mischaracterize intent.
To the best of my knowledge, that's where the compromise came from of using ellipses, and the FTFY tag or other emphasis on changed quotes.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: aceofspadesBabs - along this line - can I get a "ruling" on what I have done in the past where, when I only want to quote a portion of a post (NOT to change the post's meaning (like, I wouldn't excerpt "Nothing about Ace is amazing" and only quote "Ace is amazing"))
But, when I take only the relevant portion of a quote I do so like this:Quote:*EXCERPT* lorem ipsum
Is that an acceptable practice? Thanks
I think it's acceptable and useful as long as, like you say, it doesn't change the intent of the original.
I also like (snip) and ellipses which indicate excerpts. All make it clear that the quoter is pulling from a longer body of work.
But I think it's insufficient to simply grab a phrase and go with a partial without acknowledging (or it being immediately obvious, like it's the post immediately above yours) that you are addressing an excerpt.
We have had some problems with this before, currently died down, with trolling by misquote or out of context quotes that mischaracterize intent.
To the best of my knowledge, that's where the compromise came from of using ellipses, and the FTFY tag or other emphasis on changed quotes.
So, should I switch over to ellipses?
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: beachbumbabsQuote: aceofspadesBabs - along this line - can I get a "ruling" on what I have done in the past where, when I only want to quote a portion of a post (NOT to change the post's meaning (like, I wouldn't excerpt "Nothing about Ace is amazing" and only quote "Ace is amazing"))
But, when I take only the relevant portion of a quote I do so like this:Quote:*EXCERPT* lorem ipsum
Is that an acceptable practice? Thanks
I think it's acceptable and useful as long as, like you say, it doesn't change the intent of the original.
I also like (snip) and ellipses which indicate excerpts. All make it clear that the quoter is pulling from a longer body of work.
But I think it's insufficient to simply grab a phrase and go with a partial without acknowledging (or it being immediately obvious, like it's the post immediately above yours) that you are addressing an excerpt.
We have had some problems with this before, currently died down, with trolling by misquote or out of context quotes that mischaracterize intent.
To the best of my knowledge, that's where the compromise came from of using ellipses, and the FTFY tag or other emphasis on changed quotes.
So, should I switch over to ellipses?
No, I think your intent is clear. It's just easier to type ellipses.
"The FBI does not run "spies," but, rather, human sources" This article is laughable, but enjoy your kool aid.Quote: SteverinosI guess Trey is part of that "deep state" the cons keep talking about.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/30/opinions/fbi-is-owed-an-apology-for-false-spy-claim-campbell/index.html
Waiting for a ZeroHedge link so I can get the REAL truth.
So what else is new.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Failing and Corrupt @nytimes estimated the crowd last night at “1000 people,” when in fact it was many times that number - and the arena was rockin’. This is the way they demean and disparage. They are very dishonest people who don’t “get” me, and never did!
The actual number was 8000. The
NYT only made it 800% smaller,
why is that a problem. lol
Quote: EvenBobNew York Times Admits It Lied About Crowd Size at Nashville Trump Rally
Trump had a rally?
Oh, right, I forgot he's still campaigning against Hillary....
Quote: EvenBobNew York Times Admits It Lied About Crowd Size at Nashville Trump Rally
So what else is new.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Failing and Corrupt @nytimes estimated the crowd last night at “1000 people,” when in fact it was many times that number - and the arena was rockin’. This is the way they demean and disparage. They are very dishonest people who don’t “get” me, and never did!
The actual number was 8000. The
NYT only made it 800% smaller,
why is that a problem. lol
Trump is your source for truth?
Might as well be charles manson
Quote: TigerWuMy current favorite conspiracy theory.... Where the heck is Melania?
Trump had a rally?
Oh, right, I forgot he's still campaigning against Hillary....
Why not, she is running in 2020.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy not, she is running in 2020.
I know
Against Mitt Romney
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy not, she is running in 2020.
Yup, still in the news every day.
Hillary Clinton and Her Desire to Run Facebook - Wash Times
Quote: darkozI know
Against Mitt Romney
I didn't know Mitt was running for the Democrat nomination. I thought it was Oprah or Michelle going against Hillary.
Sam Adams, another stock that has doubled in the past year.
Give Trump credit or say he is killing America. Who cares, Jim Koch is an entrepreneur who understands America is growing and the average middle class consumer has more money than ever. And they are willing to pay a premium for quality products.
Liberals worst nightmare, a prosperous middle class.
Only so many lazy failures in life you can roll out each November.
Quote: AZDuffmanI didn't know Mitt was running for the Democrat nomination. I thought it was Oprah or Michelle going against Hillary.
Mitts your boy
He was the republicans savior in 2012.
Gonna be again in 2020 when he unseats trump in primaries
Quote: darkozMitts your boy
He was the republicans savior in 2012.
Gonna be again in 2020 when he unseats trump in primaries
What odds are you looking for? You name the amount with an agreed upon credible member holding the cash.
Quote: Bozhttps://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SAM/
Sam Adams, another stock that has doubled in the past year.
Trump responsible for alcoholism.
Quote: rxwineTrump responsible for alcoholism.
And here I thought most of his detractors were on illegal drugs, or selling them.
My bad, sorry.
Quote: BozWhat odds are you looking for? You name the amount with an agreed upon credible member holding the cash.
$100 says clinton does not run for president in 2020
Another $100 says romney does run
Both bets made or nothing
Even money obviously
We will call this political paigow
Quote: darkoz$100 says clinton does not run for president in 2020
Another $100 says romney does run
Both bets made or nothing
Even money obviously
We will call this political paigow
Nothing like moving the bar and “masking” your original comment. You said he would unseat Trump in the primary. That is the bet I’m looking to make based on your belief.
Quote: BozNothing like moving the bar and “masking” your original comment. You said he would unseat Trump in the primary. That is the bet I’m looking to make based on your belief.
And AZ and EB say Clinton is running
So i have outlined my bet
Take it or leave it.
Its open to AZ and EB as well
Quote: darkoz$100 says clinton does not run for president in 2020
Another $100 says romney does run
Both bets made or nothing
Even money obviously
We will call this political paigow
Quote: BozNothing like moving the bar and “masking” your original comment. You said he would unseat Trump in the primary. That is the bet I’m looking to make based on your belief.
Clinton not running 2020.
That's easy money.
A conservative would be dumb to take that bet.
Its just not happening.
gazillion to 1
As to Romney running 2020. That is very interesting. Right now I think even odds is a fair bet
Romney winning 2020 nomination. That's a real stretch. That's a huge long shot right now. Thousand to 1. I am leaning toward Pence, and that's only if Mueller turns out to be devastating to Trump. Even Pence is a real long shot(500 to 1) but not as much of a long shot as Romney getting the nomination
2020 is impossible to predict till Mueller shows his cards
Could be a nothing burger
Could be more people are going to jail
You can start with the shot a Michael Pence for "mental illness." If that's not enough, a simple search request like "Nasty Statements on 'The View' will produce a more than sufficient quantity.Quote: terapinedWhat has the view said that conservative snow flakes are complaining about?
Quote: terapinedClinton not running 2020.
That's easy money.
A conservative would be dumb to take that bet.
Its just not happening.
gazillion to 1
As to Romney running 2020. That is very interesting. Right now I think even odds is a fair bet
Romney winning 2020 nomination. That's a real stretch. That's a huge long shot right now. Thousand to 1. I am leaning toward Pence, and that's only if Mueller turns out to be devastating to Trump. Even Pence is a real long shot(500 to 1) but not as much of a long shot as Romney getting the nomination
2020 is impossible to predict till Mueller shows his cards
Could be a nothing burger
Could be more people are going to jail
What kind of odds
are you offering on
this proposition? Yes
vs No : Clinton run in
2020?
Quote: darkozQuote: EvenBobNew York Times Admits It Lied About Crowd Size at Nashville Trump Rally
So what else is new.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Failing and Corrupt @nytimes estimated the crowd last night at “1000 people,” when in fact it was many times that number - and the arena was rockin’. This is the way they demean and disparage. They are very dishonest people who don’t “get” me, and never did!
The actual number was 8000. The
NYT only made it 800% smaller,
why is that a problem. lol
Trump is your source for truth?
Might as well be charles manson
Nope, it was Davis herself:
Julie Davis
Verified account @juliehdavis
Julie Davis Retweeted Donald J. Trump
President @realDonaldTrump is correct about his crowd last night. My estimate was way off, and we have corrected our story to reflect the fire marshal’s estimate of 5,500 people. When we get it wrong, we say so. https://nyti.ms/2H2ETXo
Quote: RSWhat kind of odds
are you offering on
this proposition? Yes
vs No : Clinton run in
2020?
Not offering anything
Just evaluating the propositions and estimating the odds
But if you are pushing for a bet
I will bet 100 that Clinton does not run for President
She does not officially enter any primaries for the 2020 race
even odds
I only make bets where I feel I have a huge advantage
Its fair because conservatives on this board say she will run
therefore
You must feel you have a huge advantage
Bet?
Quote: terapinedNot offering anything
Just evaluating the propositions and estimating the odds
But if you are pushing for a bet
I will bet 100 that Clinton does not run for President
She does not officially enter any primaries for the 2020 race
even odds
I only make bets where I feel I have a huge advantage
Its fair because conservatives on this board say she will run
therefore
You must feel you have a huge advantage
Bet?
I'll take 1000-to-1.
It's a fair bet because liberals on
this forum are saying there's no
way in hell she's going to run in
2020. I also only (generally try to)
only make side-bets when I think
I have a yuge advantage, at least
for anything more than a couple
bucks.
Quote: SanchoPanzaYou can start with the shot a Michael Pence for "mental illness." If that's not enough, a simple search request like "Nasty Statements on 'The View' will produce a more than sufficient quantity.
I did search the above
I just don't see anything that's offensive.
Behar is kind of kooky. Yawn
I pretty much ignore Roseanne and the View.
I never complained about Roseanne. How can I? Never watch her show. Don't follow her tweets. Just laughed at her firing
Fox could pick up her show and I could care less
You got to be a total snow flake if the View offends you
The View entertaining? Of course not. Just gossipy Women. Boring yes, offensive no
Quote: RSI'll take 1000-to-1.
It's a fair bet because liberals on
this forum are saying there's no
way in hell she's going to run in
2020.
conservatives such as EB and AZ are saying she is running
I am the one offering the fair bet
You are only listening to one side and offering an unfair bet
I am listening to both sides and offering a fair bet
Really weird, you listen to libs but ignore the conservatives and then declare your bet fair.
Come on RS. You are tr**ling me with that offer
Man up and make a fair offer or don't offer a bet
Quote: terapinedconservatives such as EB and AZ are saying she is running
I am the one offering the fair bet
You are only listening to one side and offering an unfair bet
I am listening to both sides and offering a fair bet
Really weird, you listen to libs but ignore the conservatives and then declare your bet fair.
Come on RS. You are tr**ling me with that offer
Man up and make a fair offer or don't offer a bet
Quote: terapinedIts just not happening.
gazillion to 1
Who's trolling whom? You're only listening to conservatives and likewise offering an unfair bet. I obviously don't think +100,000 ML is a fair bet, just like I wasn't expecting EV to be a serious offer, either. I think for myself. EB and AZ are entitled to their opinions but that's not going to effect my decision process. You keep harping on about how it's impossible or w/e for Clinton to run in 2020, why do you think EV is a fair bet? rotfl. YAWN
You offered the bet and are pushing for a bet to be made. Put up a serious line, otherwise stop trolling me and wasting my time.
You want me to risk a thousand dollars for a measly buck
Regardless of what I believe, its a bet offer that is trolling me
Its a total BS offer that you know I would never ever take
;-
Golden State fans are sure they will win but I would never troll them with a BS thousand to 1 bet
Right now. I have absolutely no interest in betting with you
Satisfied?
Your too sharp :-)
You don't believe EB or AZ
I am looking to set up a bet with those deluded AZ EB believers . LOL
Quote: RSQuote: terapinedconservatives such as EB and AZ are saying she is running
I am the one offering the fair bet
You are only listening to one side and offering an unfair bet
I am listening to both sides and offering a fair bet
Really weird, you listen to libs but ignore the conservatives and then declare your bet fair.
Come on RS. You are tr**ling me with that offer
Man up and make a fair offer or don't offer a bet
Who's trolling whom? You're only listening to conservatives and likewise offering an unfair bet. I obviously don't think +100,000 ML is a fair bet, just like I wasn't expecting EV to be a serious offer, either. I think for myself. EB and AZ are entitled to their opinions but that's not going to effect my decision process. You keep harping on about how it's impossible or w/e for Clinton to run in 2020, why do you think EV is a fair bet? rotfl. YAWN
You offered the bet and are pushing for a bet to be made. Put up a serious line, otherwise stop trolling me and wasting my time.
Hillary is not running
That doesnt mean i want to waste time where i only win $1 (while $1000 is held in escrow for 2 years)
Likewise while winning a guaranteed $100 sounds good im not putting $100,000 in escrow for 2 years)
No one is gonna take you up on that
Creating a ridiculous betting scenario doesnt prove any lack of conviction on everyone elses part
How is that not equally a lie? Or is it a story because the Times rarely tells untruths while Trump sprouts them constantly?
If someone calls Christianity a "mental illness," that speaks volumes.Quote: terapinedI did search the above
I just don't see anything that's offensive.
Behar is kind of kooky. Yawn
I pretty much ignore Roseanne and the View.
I never complained about Roseanne. How can I? Never watch her show. Don't follow her tweets. Just laughed at her firing
Fox could pick up her show and I could care less
You got to be a total snow flake if the View offends you
The View entertaining? Of course not. Just gossipy Women. Boring yes, offensive no
Quote: darkozHillary is not running
That doesnt mean i want to waste time where i only win $1 (while $1000 is held in escrow for 2 years)
Likewise while winning a guaranteed $100 sounds good im not putting $100,000 in escrow for 2 years)
No one is gonna take you up on that
Creating a ridiculous betting scenario doesnt prove any lack of conviction on everyone elses part
1000-to-1 wasn't a serious offer ... I mean, unless someone wants to take me up on it. I was just countering terapined's ridiculous offer with another equally ridiculous offer.
But it does seem like you guys think it's a lock that she won't run in 2020. Surely you don't think even money is anywhere near fair, do you? I believe it was AZ who thinks it's a lock or close to it -- he bet it at even money. Terapined thinks his side is a lock and he bet it at even money.
I honestly don't really know how likely I think she is to run again in 2020.
This kinda reminds me of a few weeks (months?) ago when terapined and tringlomane got all bent out of shape when AZ used an example of a loaded question, "Are you still beating your wife?", to show the ridiculousness of what people were suggesting. Don't put too much thought into the 1000-to-1. Speaking of which, where's tringlomane been? :-(
