whitehall
Diamond Member
I guess that makes it official. Democrats are keeping our borders open in order to cultivate a new plantation of government dependent poverty pimps while Black voters are becoming more independent (and smarter).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're a dumbshit. Get lost.That's a clown question, broLOL!
The Democrats have one candidate, a rich old white woman. The GOP has the most diverse slate of candidates any party has offered.
Democrats have blacks in the back pocket. But they wont show up to vote for Hillary. Obama won in 2012 only because of unpredicted black voter turnout (and fraud). That wont happen again. And the GOP will pocket the Hispanic vote as Hispanics are naturally GOP voters.
Question: If someone offered to make a $30 bet with you whether in the next election at least 65% of Hispanic vote (as measured by exit polls) will for for the Republican Presidential candidate, would you take that bet? If not, why not?
No. It is a very serious one. One of the better ways of telling if people are serious or are just bullshitting is whether they are willing to stake money on something. Heck, I'd be willing to bet far more than $30 on this if you wanted to. So why not do it? Because internally you know it isn't going to happen?
Sure thing, boss.You're a dumbshit. Get lost.That's a clown question, broLOL!
The Democrats have one candidate, a rich old white woman. The GOP has the most diverse slate of candidates any party has offered.
Democrats have blacks in the back pocket. But they wont show up to vote for Hillary. Obama won in 2012 only because of unpredicted black voter turnout (and fraud). That wont happen again. And the GOP will pocket the Hispanic vote as Hispanics are naturally GOP voters.
Question: If someone offered to make a $30 bet with you whether in the next election at least 65% of Hispanic vote (as measured by exit polls) will for for the Republican Presidential candidate, would you take that bet? If not, why not?
No. It is a very serious one. One of the better ways of telling if people are serious or are just bullshitting is whether they are willing to stake money on something. Heck, I'd be willing to bet far more than $30 on this if you wanted to. So why not do it? Because internally you know it isn't going to happen?
I've noted your prediction about the Hispanic vote down here PredictionBook In the 2016 election a majority of Hispanic voters as determined by exit polls will vote for the Republican candidate. using the presumed weaker level of just a majority. I'll be curious after the election if you decide to update any of your actual or verbalized models of reality after the election.
Each one is a viable candidate, sane, and more experienced than the current occupant. I might add, they're smarter than Clinton too.Regardless of who will win the primaries later this year, the demographics entailed in the population growth of our country will constitute the main factor in determining who will sit in the oval office....
It is a stark reality that the US white, evangelical and republican-leaning population is dwindling, while the Hispanic/Latino and Asian segment is fast and steadily growing.
These latter segments have been ill-courted by the GOP and tend to heavily favor democrats' policies........The US House will likely remain in republican hands, but the Senate might experience a shift toward democrats (if not a majority) and the WH with guarded surety will remain "blue."
_____________________________________
Republicans have two major problems when it comes to winning presidential elections: demograpics and the Electoral College. And as the 2016 election gets off the ground, both of these problems are getting worse.
On the Electoral College front, Democrats quite simply have more electoral votes "in the bank" (i.e. safe blue states) and need to win fewer swing states than Republicans do. And demographically, the Democrats' gains among Hispanic voters in particular pose a real long-term problem for Republicans, given this population is growing extremely fast and the white population is, well, not.
The GOP s major 2016 problem in 3 maps - The Washington Post
Its too bad that rdean is on My ignore list as I'd like to see his head explode but that is just the way it goes.
I want you to consider something very carefully.
When Jindal, Fiorina, and Carson announce their candidacy, the GOP will have an African-American, a women, an American Inidan, a Cuban, and two white guys.
Now contrast that to the Democrat party which has ONE UBER RICH WHITE WOMAN who is a corporatist.
So, you go ahead with your idyll speculation on racial blocks and how they vote, ignore that second coat of shellack that was administered last year, and stick with the Dems have the white house locked up, meme. Everyone needs a fantasy.
Sure, but the repubs you listed are nut jobs. Not a viable candidate in the bunch.
This Republican Party came into existence in the middle 60's when conservatives fled the Democratic Party because so many blacks had joined. Somehow these idiot right wingers want to believe Lincoln was a confederate. But clearly, he wasn't.Name the last three-term party in the executive branchIsn't that what was said in 10 & again in 14?
Yea...hang on to that
It may be too much for your half-brain to handle, but 2016 is a PRESIDENTIAL election cycle...not a midterm one.....Take off your shoes, get your toes to help you count off the 4 years' presidential election cycles.
Name one presidential election since 1928 where repubs won without a bush or Nixon on the ticket.
Sure thing, boss.You're a dumbshit. Get lost.That's a clown question, broQuestion: If someone offered to make a $30 bet with you whether in the next election at least 65% of Hispanic vote (as measured by exit polls) will for for the Republican Presidential candidate, would you take that bet? If not, why not?
No. It is a very serious one. One of the better ways of telling if people are serious or are just bullshitting is whether they are willing to stake money on something. Heck, I'd be willing to bet far more than $30 on this if you wanted to. So why not do it? Because internally you know it isn't going to happen?
I've noted your prediction about the Hispanic vote down here PredictionBook In the 2016 election a majority of Hispanic voters as determined by exit polls will vote for the Republican candidate. using the presumed weaker level of just a majority. I'll be curious after the election if you decide to update any of your actual or verbalized models of reality after the election.
I think you're a dumbshit. No one is going to bet on an event 18 months from now. I wouldnt bet on who the nominees will be.Sure thing, boss.You're a dumbshit. Get lost.That's a clown question, bro
No. It is a very serious one. One of the better ways of telling if people are serious or are just bullshitting is whether they are willing to stake money on something. Heck, I'd be willing to bet far more than $30 on this if you wanted to. So why not do it? Because internally you know it isn't going to happen?
I've noted your prediction about the Hispanic vote down here PredictionBook In the 2016 election a majority of Hispanic voters as determined by exit polls will vote for the Republican candidate. using the presumed weaker level of just a majority. I'll be curious after the election if you decide to update any of your actual or verbalized models of reality after the election.
Great. Hopefully I'll see you here in 2016 and we'll discuss this then. Of course, if you are right, you'll presumably regret not making such a bet. And if you do think I'm a terrible "dumbshit" then I would think you'd be interested in me losing money where you can then use it bet.
Honestly, from your user name, I was expecting your objection to be that it was not ok to gamble, and was ready to then move to a bet where the loser instead pays to a charity of the winner's choice, since there's no halachic problem with that sort of thing, so I'm surprised we didn't even have to get to that stage.
I guess that makes it official. Democrats are keeping our borders open in order to cultivate a new plantation of government dependent poverty pimps while Black voters are becoming more independent (and smarter).
I think you're a dumbshit. No one is going to bet on an event 18 months from now. I wouldnt bet on who the nominees will be.
Now go run along like a good little troll and troll elsewhere.
You people wear a lot of blinders.Each one is a viable candidate, sane, and more experienced than the current occupant. I might add, they're smarter than Clinton too.Regardless of who will win the primaries later this year, the demographics entailed in the population growth of our country will constitute the main factor in determining who will sit in the oval office....
It is a stark reality that the US white, evangelical and republican-leaning population is dwindling, while the Hispanic/Latino and Asian segment is fast and steadily growing.
These latter segments have been ill-courted by the GOP and tend to heavily favor democrats' policies........The US House will likely remain in republican hands, but the Senate might experience a shift toward democrats (if not a majority) and the WH with guarded surety will remain "blue."
_____________________________________
Republicans have two major problems when it comes to winning presidential elections: demograpics and the Electoral College. And as the 2016 election gets off the ground, both of these problems are getting worse.
On the Electoral College front, Democrats quite simply have more electoral votes "in the bank" (i.e. safe blue states) and need to win fewer swing states than Republicans do. And demographically, the Democrats' gains among Hispanic voters in particular pose a real long-term problem for Republicans, given this population is growing extremely fast and the white population is, well, not.
The GOP s major 2016 problem in 3 maps - The Washington Post
Its too bad that rdean is on My ignore list as I'd like to see his head explode but that is just the way it goes.
I want you to consider something very carefully.
When Jindal, Fiorina, and Carson announce their candidacy, the GOP will have an African-American, a women, an American Inidan, a Cuban, and two white guys.
Now contrast that to the Democrat party which has ONE UBER RICH WHITE WOMAN who is a corporatist.
So, you go ahead with your idyll speculation on racial blocks and how they vote, ignore that second coat of shellack that was administered last year, and stick with the Dems have the white house locked up, meme. Everyone needs a fantasy.
Sure, but the repubs you listed are nut jobs. Not a viable candidate in the bunch.
Jindal doubles down on every dumb statement he has ever made. His statements about "No Go Zones" made him a laughing stock not only here, but world wide, and no candidate who is so anti gay marriage as him will stand even a tiny chance in a country that has already made that decision and moved on. Jindal is one of the few who will not accept the reality of that.
The right thinks the only reason Hillary is so popular is because she is a woman, so any woman is a valid opponent. They made the same mistake when they chose sarah.
Carson is a notable surgeon. He will never be a viable political representative for anyone.