2024

chri1673

Active member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
291
Reaction score
96
Points
28
As some may have noticed I like following odds. 2024 is clearly a long ways off but never too early too look ahead. I find some of these placements very laughable but also Interesting where the betting world sees our political landscape.

2024 presidential odds.
  • Kamala Harris 5/1
  • Mike Pence 8/1
  • Nikki Haley 8/1
  • Andrew Yang 12/1
  • Joe Biden 12/1
  • Pete Buttigieg 14/1
  • Michelle Obama 16/1
  • Bernie Sanders 20/1
  • Beto O’Rourke 20/1
  • Stacey Abrams 20/1
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 25/1
  • Andrew Cuomo 25/1
  • Tim Scott 25/1
For complete list.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,010
Reaction score
6,162
Points
113
You’ve been on GH a ton discussing Trump, which drives up their traffic and advertising dollars. That constitutes media consumption and is making them loads of money.

Good. I'm glad you dotards and your love affair with a moron is making GH money.
 

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
755
Points
113
Warren is a howling maniac. Yes, she is shrill.
kamalas cackle and condescension is unlikable.
tulsi is likeable. Demeanor, calm speaking tone.
krysten sinema is likeable.
Amy klobuchar is kind of boring but likable (unless you’re a staffer)
You hate every republican woman. You spend a lot of time going after Kristi Noem. You are sexist.
If you had to be on a deserted island with one of them, you would not choose Warren, Kamala, or Amy. Tulsi, Sinema, or Noem, would be the top 3 choices.
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,874
Reaction score
12,277
Points
113
As some may have noticed I like following odds. 2024 is clearly a long ways off but never too early too look ahead. I find some of these placements very laughable but also Interesting where the betting world sees our political landscape.

2024 presidential odds.
  • Kamala Harris 5/1
  • Mike Pence 8/1
  • Nikki Haley 8/1
  • Andrew Yang 12/1
  • Joe Biden 12/1
  • Pete Buttigieg 14/1
  • Michelle Obama 16/1
  • Bernie Sanders 20/1
  • Beto O’Rourke 20/1
  • Stacey Abrams 20/1
  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 25/1
  • Andrew Cuomo 25/1
  • Tim Scott 25/1
For complete list.
Joe Biden is too low. Tucker Carlson is way too low.
 



howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,874
Reaction score
12,277
Points
113
But Trump will be too old b/c he’ll be approximately the same age as Biden is now?

Your logic is totally inconsistent and so howie.
When did I say Trump was too old? He should run again! Do it Don!

Biden is too low because no sitting President has declined to run since LBJ. Yes, he'll be 82 a decent chance he won't. But he's still more likely than any one person other than Kamala.
 


ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
504
Reaction score
487
Points
63
McCain was also their mortal enemy in 2008 and Romney in 2012 when they dared to run against Obama. Now they are “true patriots” who put their country first.
Politics is like sports. You put your friendship aside when you're on the field. Once you're off the field, you can grab an adult beverage. McCain was the enemy for those who voted for Obama in 2008. Once the election was over and the votes were counted, McCain went back to being a moderate R willing to work in the gray versus mindlessly supporting every R initiative to the letter.
 



ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
504
Reaction score
487
Points
63
Warren is a howling maniac. Yes, she is shrill.
kamalas cackle and condescension is unlikable.
tulsi is likeable. Demeanor, calm speaking tone.
krysten sinema is likeable.
Amy klobuchar is kind of boring but likable (unless you’re a staffer)
You hate every republican woman. You spend a lot of time going after Kristi Noem. You are sexist.
Ask yourself if your analysis of these women has anything to do with their attractiveness? Are there any hotties out there that are called 'shrill' or are 'unlikeable?' Just asking.
 

ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
504
Reaction score
487
Points
63
This is complete revisionist history. Both were mocked on here after they lost, I remember it well.
No... people were mocking the supporters who so blindly followed their candidate and latched on to conspiracies to try to explain whey they weren't elected. Oh, sorry... that was the 2020 election.
 

ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
504
Reaction score
487
Points
63
I want the electoral and constitutional process to occur. I guess you don’t. Afraid of something?

The voter rolls in the metro area of Philadelphia includes 100s of thousands of dated inactive voters. It shouldn’t be too hard to determine if these voters simply decided to vote after not having voted in past elections...if they’re still alive.
If these conspiracies were the truth, we would have heard about it and they would have been resolved by now. It really shouldn't be that hard and it isn't. You don't think that this administration is checking into these right now? If there was any shred of this being true, Trump would be on every channel exposing this for us. The level of fraud you cite is SOOOO big that it would shake the nation to its core. The administration doesn't have anything concrete... only a growing awareness that maybe a very large portion of the country doesn't worship the ground that Trump walks on.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
49,199
Reaction score
3,705
Points
113
Ask yourself if your analysis of these women has anything to do with their attractiveness? Are there any hotties out there that are called 'shrill' or are 'unlikeable?' Just asking.
1) attractiveness of men is also a factor in likability.
2) krysten sinema is not my type at all, Amy is flat out ugly
3) Shrill is about speaking tone and content. A voice that just sounds like nails on a chalkboard.
4) tons of men are called unlikable all the time. Ted Cruz for example.
Likability as a factor in choosing political leaders is not limited to women. To try to protect them from that characterization is itself sexist and condescending.

sexism like racism is almost always a hypocritical political weapon. If you don’t like my teams women/minorities, it’s because of an ism. I can hate yours though. I am immune from isms because I am politically correct.
 



howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
55,874
Reaction score
12,277
Points
113
Ask yourself if your analysis of these women has anything to do with their attractiveness? Are there any hotties out there that are called 'shrill' or are 'unlikeable?' Just asking.
Niki Haley is "likeable" and certainly a much stronger candidate than Kristi Noem. They shouldn't even be in the same category. I would like someone to explain what Kristi Noem has done to gain this 2024 front-runner status. "Ignore COVID and do absolutely nothing" in a state where R's control everything isn't difficult or an achievement. But maybe she sponsored some key light bulb legislation in Congress I'm not aware of.
 

FormerFatOL

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
358
Reaction score
315
Points
63
1) attractiveness of men is also a factor in likability.
2) krysten sinema is not my type at all, Amy is flat out ugly
3) Shrill is about speaking tone and content. A voice that just sounds like nails on a chalkboard.
4) tons of men are called unlikable all the time. Ted Cruz for example.
Likability as a factor in choosing political leaders is not limited to women. To try to protect them from that characterization is itself sexist and condescending.

sexism like racism is almost always a hypocritical political weapon. If you don’t like my teams women/minorities, it’s because of an ism. I can hate yours though. I am immune from isms because I am politically correct.

My wife, and her grandma, thought Bill Clinton was hot. They were fan girls. Weird. But who am I to argue?
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
9,408
Reaction score
1,897
Points
113
How has this thread not evolved into talking about Tulsi gabbard?
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
25,466
Reaction score
6,132
Points
113
1) attractiveness of men is also a factor in likability.
2) krysten sinema is not my type at all, Amy is flat out ugly
3) Shrill is about speaking tone and content. A voice that just sounds like nails on a chalkboard.
4) tons of men are called unlikable all the time. Ted Cruz for example.
Likability as a factor in choosing political leaders is not limited to women. To try to protect them from that characterization is itself sexist and condescending.

sexism like racism is almost always a hypocritical political weapon. If you don’t like my teams women/minorities, it’s because of an ism. I can hate yours though. I am immune from isms because I am politically correct.
Dimwitted, loudmouth jerk man = unlikable, because of his attitude and ignorance.
Intelligent, expert woman = unlikable, because of the pitch of her voice/laugh.

Sounds like something an insecure man would say.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,492
Reaction score
3,119
Points
113
If these conspiracies were the truth, we would have heard about it and they would have been resolved by now. It really shouldn't be that hard and it isn't. You don't think that this administration is checking into these right now? If there was any shred of this being true, Trump would be on every channel exposing this for us. The level of fraud you cite is SOOOO big that it would shake the nation to its core. The administration doesn't have anything concrete... only a growing awareness that maybe a very large portion of the country doesn't worship the ground that Trump walks on.
Tell me again about how the Russians caused Trump to win in 2016? You’ve had 4 years to collect evidence, but I haven’t seen a thing that was actual proof. It didn’t stop the left from totally buying it.
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,912
Reaction score
3,734
Points
113
Politics is like sports. You put your friendship aside when you're on the field. Once you're off the field, you can grab an adult beverage. McCain was the enemy for those who voted for Obama in 2008. Once the election was over and the votes were counted, McCain went back to being a moderate R willing to work in the gray versus mindlessly supporting every R initiative to the letter.

Trump is forever on my shit list....

McCain was good candidate who ran into a better one. My main concern with him was that he seemed likely to ramp up the wars Bush started and that was my number one issue at the time. If not for that I could have easily voted for him, his character was impeccable.
 

ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
504
Reaction score
487
Points
63
Tell me again about how the Russians caused Trump to win in 2016? You’ve had 4 years to collect evidence, but I haven’t seen a thing that was actual proof. It didn’t stop the left from totally buying it.
Mueller was tasked with first determining whether the Russians interfered in the 2016 election NOT whether it caused Trump to 'win.'

This was big news in this country for years and you talked so much about it on here but you didn't bother to read it? Have you read even the Executive Summary of the report? It and the whole report can be found on justice.gov. Here is a summary:

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It identified links between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government.

The second part of the investigation focused on obstruction of justice charges. They intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime, abiding by an Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. The investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime" but "it also does not exonerate him."

The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected, noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation." The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly, referencing impeachment. As you are aware, the House voted to impeach but the Senate acquitted him.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
20,492
Reaction score
3,119
Points
113
Mueller was tasked with first determining whether the Russians interfered in the 2016 election NOT whether it caused Trump to 'win.'

This was big news in this country for years and you talked so much about it on here but you didn't bother to read it? Have you read even the Executive Summary of the report? It and the whole report can be found on justice.gov. Here is a summary:

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It identified links between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government.

The second part of the investigation focused on obstruction of justice charges. They intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime, abiding by an Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. The investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime" but "it also does not exonerate him."

The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected, noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation." The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly, referencing impeachment. As you are aware, the House voted to impeach but the Senate acquitted him.
You’re new here, aren’t you?

You should see if JTF needs an assistant and you can apply for the job. He can refine your skills to interpret things just as you want and reciting a narrative until you put the readers to sleep.

No collusion. No obstruction of justice for an offense that never happened. Bye bye.
 


Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,912
Reaction score
3,734
Points
113
Mueller was tasked with first determining whether the Russians interfered in the 2016 election NOT whether it caused Trump to 'win.'

This was big news in this country for years and you talked so much about it on here but you didn't bother to read it? Have you read even the Executive Summary of the report? It and the whole report can be found on justice.gov. Here is a summary:

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It identified links between the Trump campaign and individuals with ties to the Russian government.

The second part of the investigation focused on obstruction of justice charges. They intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime, abiding by an Office of Legal Council opinion that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. The investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime" but "it also does not exonerate him."

The report describes ten episodes where Trump may have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected, noting that he privately tried to "control the investigation." The report further states that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice and take action accordingly, referencing impeachment. As you are aware, the House voted to impeach but the Senate acquitted him.

Time to LOCK that POS UP!!!

Throw KGF in to for aiding and abetting.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
25,466
Reaction score
6,132
Points
113
A lot of people mention Tim Scott. But if the primary comes down to Tucker/Ivanka and Tim Scott, do you think he's going to win? I don't.
Just the same old thing, over and over: the candidate that can win the general, can't win the primary.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
25,466
Reaction score
6,132
Points
113
I'm afraid QAnon is above 5% and rising.
Probably, but in doing so they'll lose the core mission and it will just become a totem on t-shirts and hats, like MAGA was.

Guaranteed no more than 5% of people believe there is a pedophile slavery ring in existence.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
25,466
Reaction score
6,132
Points
113
You do know Nikki Haley isnt white right? Her paired with what you said above would be a strong ticket(either order).
White is race, not an ethnicity.

Race is a fabricated, non-scientific categorization of humans, based on a few physical traits such as skin lightness, hair type, and sometimes lips and noses.

Her physical traits are exactly the same as a White person. Because she is one. No doubt she used this to her advantage earlier in her career. She is not a brown person. See if you can tell the difference:
200824224949-nikki-haley-rnc-speech-exlarge-169.jpg

Davidson-Scholarships.jpg


Ethnically, she is more interesting than a plain vanilla European descended white person, sure.


Does she (now) self-identify her race as a person of color? Probably, since that's now to her advantage to do so.
 

ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
504
Reaction score
487
Points
63
You’re new here, aren’t you?

You should see if JTF needs an assistant and you can apply for the job. He can refine your skills to interpret things just as you want and reciting a narrative until you put the readers to sleep.

No collusion. No obstruction of justice for an offense that never happened. Bye bye.
Read the damn report. You are just regurgitating the 'narrative' that your 'sources' put on the report. Read the executive summary of the report which should take you little time and you will CLEARLY see that the investigation found significant evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election AND connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Trump and his comrades were NOT exonerated.

If you honestly come back on here in a day or two and say that you have read even the exec summary of the report and have come up with your own conclusion that there was nothing shady in the 2016 election, I will respect your opinion. Otherwise you are just another in long line of people in the social media age who just repeat what they are told.

https://www.justice.gov/sco

Look right in the middle of the page for the Report.
 

chri1673

Active member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
291
Reaction score
96
Points
28
White is race, not an ethnicity.

Race is a fabricated, non-scientific categorization of humans, based on a few physical traits such as skin lightness, hair type, and sometimes lips and noses.

Her physical traits are exactly the same as a White person. Because she is one. No doubt she used this to her advantage earlier in her career. She is not a brown person. See if you can tell the difference:
200824224949-nikki-haley-rnc-speech-exlarge-169.jpg

Davidson-Scholarships.jpg


Ethnically, she is more interesting than a plain vanilla European descended white person, sure.


Does she (now) self-identify her race as a person of color? Probably, since that's now to her advantage to do so.

Wow, so she is white if you say she is white, nice.

Id guess she puts Asian as her race on her census form. (https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html)

Her family. Ill let you be the judge. (She is the "white" one on the bottom left)
1605122558672.png


“We weren’t dark enough to be black or pale enough to be white,”
 




Top Bottom