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 dont think making stupid wagers rather than responding to arguments is dumb? No wonder you're a Democrat.About 99%. Americans arent voting for a known liar who thinks they are fools.She'll go down in flames.
You sound very confident that she will lose. Can you assign a probability to that claim?
I asked you the last time you made a ridiculous probability estimate if you would be willing to wager on it, and you responded primarily with insults.
In that context, you seem to be more interested in making ridiculous claims that your own political side will definitely win elections than any attempt at seriously thinking about the actual probabilities. Frankly, I find you annoying, and as an actually Jewish person, am not sure if I should find your highly unjustified screen name offensive: Actual Rabbis are taught to distinguish what they want to be true from what is true- this is an especially important thing in deciding issues of halacha.
Do you post here to just wreck signal to noise ratio?
Simon sez Hitlery won't be the nominee. By avoiding the media and the press she's just delaying the great train wreck.About 99%. Americans arent voting for a known liar who thinks they are fools.She'll go down in flames.
You sound very confident that she will lose. Can you assign a probability to that claim?
I asked you the last time you made a ridiculous probability estimate if you would be willing to wager on it, and you responded primarily with insults.
In that context, you seem to be more interested in making ridiculous claims that your own political side will definitely win elections than any attempt at seriously thinking about the actual probabilities. Frankly, I find you annoying, and as an actually Jewish person, am not sure if I should find your highly unjustified screen name offensive: Actual Rabbis are taught to distinguish what they want to be true from what is true- this is an especially important thing in deciding issues of halacha.
Do you post here to just wreck signal to noise ratio?
Simon sez Hitlery won't be the nominee. By avoiding the media and the press she's just delaying the great train wreck.
How about if I pay you 25 to shut the fuck up and get off this forum?Simon sez Hitlery won't be the nominee. By avoiding the media and the press she's just delaying the great train wreck.
Interesting. If someone offered to make you a $25 bet on whether Hillary will win the nomination, would you take it?
The Liberal Progressive pukes on here think a popularity contest will win the election.You dont think making stupid wagers rather than responding to arguments is dumb? No wonder you're a Democrat.About 99%. Americans arent voting for a known liar who thinks they are fools.She'll go down in flames.
You sound very confident that she will lose. Can you assign a probability to that claim?
I asked you the last time you made a ridiculous probability estimate if you would be willing to wager on it, and you responded primarily with insults.
In that context, you seem to be more interested in making ridiculous claims that your own political side will definitely win elections than any attempt at seriously thinking about the actual probabilities. Frankly, I find you annoying, and as an actually Jewish person, am not sure if I should find your highly unjustified screen name offensive: Actual Rabbis are taught to distinguish what they want to be true from what is true- this is an especially important thing in deciding issues of halacha.
Do you post here to just wreck signal to noise ratio?
Hillary has every element of every failed campaign over the last 25 years: she is old, she is shrill, she is secretive,she does not click with voters, she lacks any kind of vision, she is not upbeat, she is not positive, she does not inspire devotion or even trust.
Virtually every losing candidate has had tthose exact characteristics. Convince me that "this time it will be different."
My bets would be in six figures which I doubt you could handle, Libby.Simon sez Hitlery won't be the nominee. By avoiding the media and the press she's just delaying the great train wreck.
Interesting. If someone offered to make you a $25 bet on whether Hillary will win the nomination, would you take it?
You dont think making stupid wagers rather than responding to arguments is dumb? No wonder you're a Democrat.
Hillary has every element of every failed campaign over the last 25 years: she is old, she is shrill, she is secretive,she does not click with voters, she lacks any kind of vision, she is not upbeat, she is not positive, she does not inspire devotion or even trust.
Virtually every losing candidate has had tthose exact characteristics. Convince me that "this time it will be different."
OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.You dont think making stupid wagers rather than responding to arguments is dumb? No wonder you're a Democrat.
Hillary has every element of every failed campaign over the last 25 years: she is old, she is shrill, she is secretive,she does not click with voters, she lacks any kind of vision, she is not upbeat, she is not positive, she does not inspire devotion or even trust.
Virtually every losing candidate has had tthose exact characteristics. Convince me that "this time it will be different."
You've made almost no coherent argument to respond to, hence my comment about wrecking signal to noise ratio. The only one of your conditions that is accurate is "old." As for the claim that she doesn't "click" with voters- the data is very much the opposite. See polling summaries here.
Heck, I'm not at all convinced she is going to win! My primary objection to your claims isn't that she's going to win. No, the primary objection is that claims like 99% are clearly cheerleading. It isn't at all uncommon for people to engage in shouting "Candidate X will win!" or "Candidate Y will lose!" when they mean really "I agree with X" or "I disagree with Y." But the thing is, people don't even fully believe it. They know deep inside that the chances aren't nearly as high. If you said she has a say 60% chance of winning, I wouldn't make any fuss about it. And if there were a Democrat or liberal here who made a claim that she had a 99% chance or even a 90% chance of winning, I'd criticize them the exact same way.
My bets would be in six figures which I doubt you could handle, Libby.
No bets, because Hitlery will never be a factor after she gives in to the media. Besides, Trey Gowdy is patiently waiting for her E-mails.My bets would be in six figures which I doubt you could handle, Libby.
I'm generally more interested in making bets with people to trigger careful cognitive thinking. I don't often make larger bets with people over the internet because they are much less likely to pay them up (and since I do lose a fair number of bets I would like to not actually lose that much money on net from unscrupulous individuals), and very few people on the internet are interrested in them in any case, but if you are interested in making a larger bet, feel free to send me a message and we can discuss the details.
i wish one of the credible pollsters would take a poll where Hillary VS a double-hispanic ticket. then hillary may need to start twalking.Not!!!
Yep.....
The Hildabeast's favorability among Independents has dropped 11 points since last year. It is now down to 45%. She will not win unless those numbers improve to at least 50%.
Fox Poll Hillary Clinton s Favorability Plummets 11 Points Among Independents Washington Free Beacon
Also, head to head against Jeb Bush she loses according to a recent Fox Poll.
And finally, another recent poll shows the Hildabeast losing by 10 points or more in six key battleground States that Obama won.
Woopsie!!!
A key quote:
"The survey, conducted on behalf of the conservative super-PAC American Crossroads, found an unnamed GOP candidate taking 51 percent support among voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.
Clinton takes only 41 percent support among voters in those states, according to the poll.
The survey found Clinton’s favorability rating deep underwater, with 40 percent reporting a positive view of the former secretary of State against 53 percent who said they view her negatively."
OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.
No bets, because Hitlery will never be a factor after she gives in to the media. Besides, Trey Gowdy is patiently waiting for her E-mails.My bets would be in six figures which I doubt you could handle, Libby.
I'm generally more interested in making bets with people to trigger careful cognitive thinking. I don't often make larger bets with people over the internet because they are much less likely to pay them up (and since I do lose a fair number of bets I would like to not actually lose that much money on net from unscrupulous individuals), and very few people on the internet are interrested in them in any case, but if you are interested in making a larger bet, feel free to send me a message and we can discuss the details.
It isnt possible. It's a certainty. Your deficits are not my problem, s0n.OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.
It is possible that you made an argument that I missed somewhere. Can you point to a specific post you think I should look at?
It isnt possible. It's a certainty. Your deficits are not my problem, s0n.OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.
It is possible that you made an argument that I missed somewhere. Can you point to a specific post you think I should look at?
I'm interested in having a discussion with people who are actually informed and capable of it. That clearly doesnt include someone running around challenging people to bets.It isnt possible. It's a certainty. Your deficits are not my problem, s0n.OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.
It is possible that you made an argument that I missed somewhere. Can you point to a specific post you think I should look at?
Are you attempting to actually have a discussion with other people here or are you solely interested in repeating your own views as much as possible while insulting people who don't agree with you?
It worked for Obama....twice! You'd think the dupes would have wised up during his first term...The Liberal Progressive pukes on here think a popularity contest will win the election.You dont think making stupid wagers rather than responding to arguments is dumb? No wonder you're a Democrat.About 99%. Americans arent voting for a known liar who thinks they are fools.She'll go down in flames.
You sound very confident that she will lose. Can you assign a probability to that claim?
I asked you the last time you made a ridiculous probability estimate if you would be willing to wager on it, and you responded primarily with insults.
In that context, you seem to be more interested in making ridiculous claims that your own political side will definitely win elections than any attempt at seriously thinking about the actual probabilities. Frankly, I find you annoying, and as an actually Jewish person, am not sure if I should find your highly unjustified screen name offensive: Actual Rabbis are taught to distinguish what they want to be true from what is true- this is an especially important thing in deciding issues of halacha.
Do you post here to just wreck signal to noise ratio?
Hillary has every element of every failed campaign over the last 25 years: she is old, she is shrill, she is secretive,she does not click with voters, she lacks any kind of vision, she is not upbeat, she is not positive, she does not inspire devotion or even trust.
Virtually every losing candidate has had tthose exact characteristics. Convince me that "this time it will be different."
I'm interested in having a discussion with people who are actually informed and capable of it. That clearly doesnt include someone running around challenging people to bets.It isnt possible. It's a certainty. Your deficits are not my problem, s0n.OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.
It is possible that you made an argument that I missed somewhere. Can you point to a specific post you think I should look at?
Are you attempting to actually have a discussion with other people here or are you solely interested in repeating your own views as much as possible while insulting people who don't agree with you?
Your butt hurt is not my problem.I'm interested in having a discussion with people who are actually informed and capable of it. That clearly doesnt include someone running around challenging people to bets.It isnt possible. It's a certainty. Your deficits are not my problem, s0n.OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.
It is possible that you made an argument that I missed somewhere. Can you point to a specific post you think I should look at?
Are you attempting to actually have a discussion with other people here or are you solely interested in repeating your own views as much as possible while insulting people who don't agree with you?
I've explained to you already why I think small bets are useful, and you ignored that point. But it is worth noting that in this context, I haven't asked to bet you, I asked you to point out where the argument was that I missed. It takes about as long to link to the post you think I should read as it does to insult someone.
Also, I have to register amusement that you think condescendingly calling someone "son" is useful while you've insulted the same person as "ben Amalek" in another thread.
I think that someone once told you you were the smartest kid in the room.I'm interested in having a discussion with people who are actually informed and capable of it. That clearly doesnt include someone running around challenging people to bets.It isnt possible. It's a certainty. Your deficits are not my problem, s0n.OK you dont know an argument when you see it. I can't help that. You are a dunce.
It is possible that you made an argument that I missed somewhere. Can you point to a specific post you think I should look at?
Are you attempting to actually have a discussion with other people here or are you solely interested in repeating your own views as much as possible while insulting people who don't agree with you?
I've explained to you already why I think small bets are useful, and you ignored that point. But it is worth noting that in this context, I haven't asked to bet you, I asked you to point out where the argument was that I missed. It takes about as long to link to the post you think I should read as it does to insult someone.
Also, I have to register amusement that you think condescendingly calling someone "son" is useful while you've insulted the same person as "ben Amalek" in another thread.
