The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare

[kwc57]

Just SAW GRAHAM'S declaration speech if he represents diversity ..then the word has no meaning

Now, now.......he's gay. Which candidate from the progressive party of diversity is gay?

that 's the point in the progressive party sexuality is irrelevant.
for the regressive party he and al the other "minorities" ARE THERE JUST TO further the myth of conservative acceptance ..

Oh bullshit! Just the opposite. If sexuality were irrelevant, why would the Dems work so hard at election time point out that they are the friends of gays, blacks, females, Hispanics, etc? What someone is is how Democrats identify people and market to them. Sexuality is key to Democrats.

 

[Redfish]

You keep asking for bets so here is my offer to you. $5000 that a republican wins in 2016. After that we can talk about the next 4 elections because the betting odds on that woul depend on who they pick for VP next year.

I think a Kasich/Rubio ticket would lock it in for 16 years. but thats just my opinion.

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

But I know that you don't really want to bet .. which is why you made it $5000. :0)

Ok, I don't want you to miss a car payment, so make it easy on yourself $5.00.

I'm betting I've made a lot more money than you have. .. as in, a LOT more. :0)

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

No, its called profitting from good decisions.

 

[Redfish]

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

But I know that you don't really want to bet .. which is why you made it $5000. :0)

Ok, I don't want you to miss a car payment, so make it easy on yourself $5.00.

I'm betting I've made a lot more money than you have. .. as in, a LOT more. :0)

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

 

[daws101]

Just SAW GRAHAM'S declaration speech if he represents diversity ..then the word has no meaning

Now, now.......he's gay. Which candidate from the progressive party of diversity is gay?

that 's the point in the progressive party sexuality is irrelevant.
for the regressive party he and al the other "minorities" ARE THERE JUST TO further the myth of conservative acceptance ..

Oh bullshit! Just the opposite. If sexuality were irrelevant, why would the Dems work so hard at election time point out that they are the friends of gays, blacks, females, Hispanics, etc? What someone is is how Democrats identify people and market to them. Sexuality is key to Democrats.

way to rationalize!

 

[daws101]

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

But I know that you don't really want to bet .. which is why you made it $5000. :0)

Ok, I don't want you to miss a car payment, so make it easy on yourself $5.00.

I'm betting I've made a lot more money than you have. .. as in, a LOT more. :0)

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

No, its called profitting from good decisions.

of course you'd say that!

 

[hazlnut]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

It's comments like this and hysterical fringies who are going to hand the WH to HRC.

Well played, boy.

 

[daws101]

Ok, I don't want you to miss a car payment, so make it easy on yourself $5.00.

I'm betting I've made a lot more money than you have. .. as in, a LOT more. :0)

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

false! profit is not evil ..it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Ok. So some probability under 1%. Question then, would you be willing to make a bet where if the Democrats win the election you get $5 and if not, you pay $50? That's a 1-10 ratio which is already much better than the 1-100.

sure.

Ok. Now seriously proposing that bet then. Still interested?

don't do financial transaction over the internet....

Too bad. Bets are an excellent way of seeing how serious they are about claimed probabilities, and it is very easy to resolve them through Paypal which takes about 5 minutes to set up.

why do I get the impression you think you are going to make a pile?
I'm fairly sure you'll bet against Hillary no matter what your politics are.

Of course I'm betting here independent of my politics. The entire reason I ask people to bet is that I want them to think carefully about whether the odds and probabilities they claim are really what they believe or whether they are wishful thinking and cheerleading for their candidates. If I make money from that that's a) incidental and b) more of a lesson that people need to think carefully and critically about what their actual beliefs are. For what it is worth, I estimate that Hillary has an about 55% chance of winning the Presidency and that the Dems overall have an about 60% chance.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Ok, I don't want you to miss a car payment, so make it easy on yourself $5.00.

I'm betting I've made a lot more money than you have. .. as in, a LOT more. :0)

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

That's not really what's going on here: I suspect if you did a systematic test you'd find that both self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives have about as much confusion about both fiscal and economic matters. Note however that if someone did think that profit is evil that wouldn't be a sign of fiscal idiocy but rather a sign of a bad moral conclusion. The truth is that what one is seeing here is actually a very common problem throughout the political spectrum: the feeling that something which creates an overall utilitarian benefit isn't ok if it feels like it breaks some moral taboo. In this case, the taboo is "profiting from other's misfortune" but you see this is in other situations. For example, right-wing attitudes against the HPV vaccine fall into a very similar category.

 

[Redfish]

I'm betting I've made a lot more money than you have. .. as in, a LOT more. :0)

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

false! profit is not evil ..it's the way you make that makes that distinction.

Putting ones money at risk in the market is evil? please explain

Creating and selling a product that people want or need is evil? please explain

Building a house using your capital and spending 100 K and then selling it for 120K is evil? please explain.

 

[Redfish]

I'm betting I've made a lot more money than you have. .. as in, a LOT more. :0)

we can compare portfolios if you want, but I assure you that mine exceeds yours by a very significant amount. in 2008 when everyone was selling, I bought, and it has paid off big time.

so you profited from misery ....how conservative !

This seems extremely unfair. Buying when a market is low is a perfectly normal and useful thing. Moreover, it is necessary for markets to function: First, if no one buys then then prices will drop even further and the people who are selling because they need to sell won't get the money they need. Second, if no one starts buying when the prices are low, the prices don't recover. Don't blame or criticize people for engaging in basic financial transactions.

don't you get it? in the dem/lib mind all profit is evil and all profit is stolen from someone else. Liberals are fiscal idiots.

That's not really what's going on here: I suspect if you did a systematic test you'd find that both self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives have about as much confusion about both fiscal and economic matters. Note however that if someone did think that profit is evil that wouldn't be a sign of fiscal idiocy but rather a sign of a bad moral conclusion. The truth is that what one is seeing here is actually a very common problem throughout the political spectrum: the feeling that something which creates an overall utilitarian benefit isn't ok if it feels like it breaks some moral taboo. In this case, the taboo is "profiting from other's misfortune" but you see this is in other situations. For example, right-wing attitudes against the HPV vaccine fall into a very similar category.

So the big pharma drug companies should sell their products at a break even price? Good luck with that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

If the GOP has a stable of winners why haven't any of them announced?

 

[Redfish]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

If the GOP has a stable of winners why haven't any of them announced?

 

[kwc57]

Just SAW GRAHAM'S declaration speech if he represents diversity ..then the word has no meaning

Now, now.......he's gay. Which candidate from the progressive party of diversity is gay?

that 's the point in the progressive party sexuality is irrelevant.
for the regressive party he and al the other "minorities" ARE THERE JUST TO further the myth of conservative acceptance ..

Oh bullshit! Just the opposite. If sexuality were irrelevant, why would the Dems work so hard at election time point out that they are the friends of gays, blacks, females, Hispanics, etc? What someone is is how Democrats identify people and market to them. Sexuality is key to Democrats.

way to rationalize!

Way to deny!

 

[paulitician]

She could still win. The GOP basically only has more angry old greedy white dudes to offer. I think the People are looking for something different these days. Rubio might have a chance, but Hillary would still have an edge. Dems should hang on to the White House.

 

[paulitician]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

 

[kwc57]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

If the GOP has a stable of winners why haven't any of them announced?

Given that you think Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley are a stable of winners, it becomes apparent you have no concept of who a true winner would be.

She could still win. The GOP basically only has more angry old greedy white dudes to offer. I think the People are looking for something different these days. Rubio might have a chance, but Hillary would still have an edge. Dems should hang on to the White House.

Do what? I think you're confused. The Dems have three old angry white dudes with tired old ideas. Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley. The Republicans have two Hispanics, one black, one female one gay and possibly one Indian.....so far. Not exactly what I'd call old white guys.

 

[kwc57]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

Outside of Maryland, few people have any idea who he is.

 

[paulitician]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

Outside of Maryland, few people have any idea who he is.

They didn't know anything about the foreigner Communist from Kenya either. The Republicans are in a real pickle. They can't shake that angry fat greedy old white dude image. The Democrats should have no problem hanging on to the White House.

 

[JoshuaZ]

And don't count out O'Malley either. He'd have a very good chance of beating any Republican Candidate.

It is extremely unlikely that O'Malley will get the nomination. See for example this analysis.