The Race For 2024

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ha! Perfect!

I accuse Trump of a serious crime, one that I say should have him jailed. Yet this is a crime that would also describe actions of Biden, Obama, and Bush Jr. Therefore nobody acknowledges the crime I accuse Trump of and accuse me of supporting him.

When you are done pretending to be ignored, which of Donald's Trump's indictments do you classify as "lawfare"? Are any of them frivolous and without merit? If you expect to be acknowledged, then you should at least try to acknowledge others. If you want to say that you don't support Trump, that's fine. But it seems reasonable to wonder why heap so much criticism on Democrats and so little on Trump and the party that is the Republican frontrunner.

I already answered you when I said that accusing him of masterminding the J6 protests and of the J6 protests being an insurrection. If you're not going to read my posts, don't bother accusing me of not answering.

Or is your refusal to read my answers proof that I don't answer questions?

Now discuss why you won't touch the Nawar "Nora" al-Awlaki issue. Why do you avoid it? Why are you afraid to talk about it? What about that issue makes you want to discuss literally anything else?

 

[Swammerdami]

What can y’all glean from this?
View attachment 47583
It costs $.46 to bet Republicans win the Presidency, but $.47 to bet on Trump.
(All bets pay $1.00 if you win)

At the same time, it costs a penny more to bet Kami wins the Presidency than to bet she’ll be #47. At least it is possible; if Joe croaks or quits before the next inauguration, she can be #47 without winning the election. But that bet should be MORE expensive rather than less.

The killer for me … who is thinking that it’s a better deal to bet on Trump at $.47 than $.46 on any Republican (a category that fucking INCLUDES Trump)?

Reading through the comments, there are a few true blowhard trumpsuckers, so I put it down to their stupidity.

Are those recent numbers from Predictit.org ? Unfortunately, as you know Polymarket and Betfair are much bigger markets and hence their predictions are more "reliable" (i.e. more likely to match the future "reality").

Trump is currently favored 51-47 at Polymarket, and favored 50-47 at Betfair.

Nate Silver has a webpage for his number, but after reading the lead paragraphs to summarize recent polls, etc. one seems to need a paid subscription to actually see the number!

270towin.com offers several predicted maps. Their map attributed to Nate Silver shows PA(19), MI(15), WI(10) and NV(6) as the only tossup states, with all other swing states leaning Trump. Harris needs all but 6 of these ev's (i.e. all but NV) to get to 270. And that 270 includes 1 ev from Omaha. If Nebraska changes its rule (and Maine fails to reciprocate) Trump will win the 269-269 tie.

(I thought vaguely of starting a thread on the crafts of probability estimation, with links to on-line papers, but doubt there'd be enough interest.)

 

[Elixir]

USA Today seems to be all over the map on it.

The statistical tie amongst the oddsmakers is narrower than the slight lead for Harris suggested by recent polls.

A USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll released Thursday found that Harris leads nationally 48%-43%, marking an eight-point turnaround from June, when President Joe Biden was the nominee.

 

[Copernicus]

Ha! Perfect!

I accuse Trump of a serious crime, one that I say should have him jailed. Yet this is a crime that would also describe actions of Biden, Obama, and Bush Jr. Therefore nobody acknowledges the crime I accuse Trump of and accuse me of supporting him.

When you are done pretending to be ignored, which of Donald's Trump's indictments do you classify as "lawfare"? Are any of them frivolous and without merit? If you expect to be acknowledged, then you should at least try to acknowledge others. If you want to say that you don't support Trump, that's fine. But it seems reasonable to wonder why heap so much criticism on Democrats and so little on Trump and the party that is the Republican frontrunner.

I already answered you when I said that accusing him of masterminding the J6 protests and of the J6 protests being an insurrection. If you're not going to read my posts, don't bother accusing me of not answering.

No, that was an evasion, not an answer. So far, you have not identified a single indictment of Donald Trump as "lawfare"--that is, a frivolous lawsuit designed to damage or discredit a political opponent. What you do instead is nitpick over the word "insurrection" and then claim that I don't read the post in which you evade answering the question.

Or is your refusal to read my answers proof that I don't answer questions?

I have never refused to read your posts, and I have read those in which I was curious about how you would respond. The problem here is not that I don't read your posts or you don't read mine. The problem is that you won't defend your claim, and you won't retract it either.

Now discuss why you won't touch the Nawar "Nora" al-Awlaki issue. Why do you avoid it? Why are you afraid to talk about it? What about that issue makes you want to discuss literally anything else?

First of all, by your own words, it is pure whataboutism--an attempt to deflect and change the subject. Secondly, I addressed the issue directly when I pointed out that the Supreme Court has recently given absolute immunity to presidents when they use an official act to commit a crime. The legality of Trump's order that led to the death of that girl might have been illegal before the Supreme Court blessing, but it no longer is. Thirdly, no one has attempted to bring a criminal charge against Trump for that action and have it called "lawfare" by you.

Getting back to your lawfare claim, which indictments brought against Donald Trump by grand juries do you think merit the label "lawfare"? Which were brought solely to damage and discredit him politically? Which would not normally be brought against a former president for doing what Donald Trump is accused of doing?

 

[Elixir]

which indictments brought against Donald Trump by grand juries do you think merit the label "lawfare"?

You DO realize you’re playing chess with a pigeon, right?
IMNSHO, dead red trumpsuckers are more forthright than libbertroids. And that’s not saying much.

 

[Copernicus]

which indictments brought against Donald Trump by grand juries do you think merit the label "lawfare"?

You DO realize you’re playing chess with a pigeon, right?
IMNSHO, dead red trumpsuckers are more forthright than libbertroids. And that’s not saying much.

But I'm not playing pigeon chess at all. I'm playing "catch the greased pig". Different rules, same result.

 

[bilby]

Are those recent numbers from Predictit.org ? Unfortunately, as you know Polymarket and Betfair are much bigger markets and hence their predictions are more "reliable" (i.e. more likely to match the future "reality").

Trump is currently favored 51-47 at Polymarket, and favored 50-47 at Betfair.

But is it not written:

I know I'm going to lose
And gambling's for fools
But that's the way Iike it, Baby
I don't want to live forever

And don't forget the joker...

It's more than likely that the sets "people who are dumb enough to bet" and "people who support Trump" have a sizable overlap, causing a bias in the markets.

 

[TomC]

It's more than likely that the sets "people who are dumb enough to bet" and "people who support Trump" have a sizable overlap, causing a bias in the markets.

That's kinda my attitude.
Of all the major vices, from sleazy sex to psychedelic drugs, gambling is the only one I didn't find worth bothering with twice.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ha! Perfect!

I accuse Trump of a serious crime, one that I say should have him jailed. Yet this is a crime that would also describe actions of Biden, Obama, and Bush Jr. Therefore nobody acknowledges the crime I accuse Trump of and accuse me of supporting him.

When you are done pretending to be ignored, which of Donald's Trump's indictments do you classify as "lawfare"? Are any of them frivolous and without merit? If you expect to be acknowledged, then you should at least try to acknowledge others. If you want to say that you don't support Trump, that's fine. But it seems reasonable to wonder why heap so much criticism on Democrats and so little on Trump and the party that is the Republican frontrunner.

I already answered you when I said that accusing him of masterminding the J6 protests and of the J6 protests being an insurrection. If you're not going to read my posts, don't bother accusing me of not answering.

No, that was an evasion, not an answer. So far, you have not identified a single indictment of Donald Trump as "lawfare"--that is, a frivolous lawsuit designed to damage or discredit a political opponent. What you do instead is nitpick over the word "insurrection" and then claim that I don't read the post in which you evade answering the question.

I answered you. If you reading level is not high enough the fault is on your end.

Or is your refusal to read my answers proof that I don't answer questions?

I have never refused to read your posts, and I have read those in which I was curious about how you would respond. The problem here is not that I don't read your posts or you don't read mine. The problem is that you won't defend your claim, and you won't retract it either.

How many times will you want me to repeat myself before you acknowledge that I wrote it even once?

Now discuss why you won't touch the Nawar "Nora" al-Awlaki issue. Why do you avoid it? Why are you afraid to talk about it? What about that issue makes you want to discuss literally anything else?

First of all, by your own words, it is pure whataboutism--an attempt to deflect and change the subject. Secondly, I addressed the issue directly when I pointed out that the Supreme Court has recently given absolute immunity to presidents when they use an official act to commit a crime. The legality of Trump's order that led to the death of that girl might have been illegal before the Supreme Court blessing, but it no longer is. Thirdly, no one has attempted to bring a criminal charge against Trump for that action and have it called "lawfare" by you.

There is no "whataboutism" there. I made a definitive claim about something Trump did that I consider a crime. In theory you should be happy someone said something bad about Trump. In theory. Not in this situation. In any situation except this one. You are ducking and avoiding, and pretending I never answered you so that you don't have to answer me.

The words "what about", when put back into context, show clearly that it isn't a whataboutism, because I was asking you why you are ducking the topic. "What about that issue makes you want to discuss literally anything else?" is not the same as "What about Nawar al Awlaki?" Is the same reading deficiency that prevents you from seeing my answer preventing you from telling the difference between those two questions?

I think what Trump did with Nawar al-Awlaki is a war crime. You don't want to address it. You're even pretending that when I say Trump did something bad but not the same thing you say is bad that it is "whataboutism". Perhaps you should look up the meaning of that particular word before you start using it.

Getting back to your lawfare claim, which indictments brought against Donald Trump by grand juries do you think merit the label "lawfare"? Which were brought solely to damage and discredit him politically? Which would not normally be brought against a former president for doing what Donald Trump is accused of doing?

All of those bullshit claims. He did not lead the J6 protest. The J6 protest wasn't an insurrection. There I've answered it again so that you can ignore it again and pretend I didn't answer it at all, again.

I guess inside that tinfoil hat you wear is an idea that Trump was commanding his troops to storm the capital building, with specific instructions to attack specific key areas, acting as the military leader of an insurrectionist conspiracy.

Once again, "if I don't read your answer that means you didn't answer" is false and doesn't prove I don't provide answers.

Now that I've answered you yet again, let us talk about Nawar al-Awlaki. You really don't want to talk about her, and I know why. It isn't SCOTUS. There's another reason you don't want to talk about her.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I guess inside that tinfoil hat you wear is an idea that Trump was commanding his troops to storm the capital building, with specific instructions to attack specific key areas, acting as the military leader of an insurrectionist conspiracy.

There is good evidence that Trump conspired with his cohort, which included Giuliani and Roger Stone, to work with groups like the Proud Boys (who arrived in tactical gear and moved in formation) to assault the Capitol with the express purpose of disrupting and delaying the constitutionally mandated certification of the electoral college.

This was presented by the Congressional investigation. Not sure if you watched it or followed up with other stories. There was certainly enough evidence to empanel a grand jury.

To say that it was merely Biden attempting to jail his political opponent is overlooking a tremendous amount of factual information. Its difficult for me to tell if that ignorance on your part is willful or not.

 

[Shadowy Man]

At the very least, when the Capitol was attacked, even if just a simple unplanned riot, the fact that the President and Commander-in-chief did nothing to address it is a fact that makes him unfit to serve again, likely constitutionally barred, and possibly treasonous.

 

[ZiprHead]

At the very least, when the Capitol was attacked, even if just a simple unplanned riot, the fact that the President and Commander-in-chief did nothing to address it is a fact that makes him unfit to serve again, likely constitutionally barred, and possibly treasonous.

I guess inside that tinfoil hat you wear is an idea that Trump was commanding his troops to storm the capital building, with specific instructions to attack specific key areas, acting as the military leader of an insurrectionist conspiracy.

There is good evidence that Trump conspired with his cohort, which included Giuliani and Roger Stone, to work with groups like the Proud Boys (who arrived in tactical gear and moved in formation) to assault the Capitol with the express purpose of disrupting and delaying the constitutionally mandated certification of the electoral college.

This was presented by the Congressional investigation. Not sure if you watched it or followed up with other stories. There was certainly enough evidence to empanel a grand jury.

To say that it was merely Biden attempting to jail his political opponent is overlooking a tremendous amount of factual information. Its difficult for me to tell if that ignorance on your part is willful or not.

Considering both of the above posts and the illegal fake electors scheme that originated in the White House you'd have to be blind to not see it was all parts of the plan.

 

[unapologetic]

It's more than likely that the sets "people who are dumb enough to bet" and "people who support Trump" have a sizable overlap, causing a bias in the markets.

Gamblers have notoriously bad judgement. That's why it's so profitable for bookies. The majority of gamblers LOOSE. (are wrong). The odds don't change that fact. Many idiot gamblers, Just like afterlife believers, bet on the highest promised payout. Not the most likely outcome.
I repeat, The odds on betting websites is determined by the % of gamblers on each position. Which is the gamblers amateur opinion of who might win.

 

[unapologetic]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

We grieve the senseless death of the Israeli Hostages, horrifically including a wonderful American Citizen, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, murdered by Hamas due to a complete lack of American Strength and Leadership. Make no mistake — This happened because Comrade Kamala Harris and Crooked Joe Biden are poor Leaders. Americans are getting slaughtered overseas, while Kamala is disparaging and making up lies about Gold Star families, and Biden is sleeping on the beach on this 16th consecutive day of vacation. They have blood on their hands! Sadly, this is the total lack of “Leadership” that Kamala and Biden represent — One that allows terrorists to take American lives, because they only care about Weaponizing the Department of Justice against their Political Opponent. Just like the Debacle of the Afghanistan Withdrawal that claimed 13 American lives,

Kamala and Biden’s judgment has not only put lives at risk, but is directly responsible for unnecessary deaths that should have never happened.

Our Country and our amazing people are not safe under Joe Biden, and will be less safe under Kamala Harris. This terror would have never happened if I were President, and it will stop the day I am back in the Oval Office. America will be Strong Again, and that will make the World Safe and Secure!

Reality check people:
"Making America great again" Means we have to go to war with somebody.

 

[bilby]

It's more than likely that the sets "people who are dumb enough to bet" and "people who support Trump" have a sizable overlap, causing a bias in the markets.

Gamblers have notoriously bad judgement. That's why it's so profitable for bookies. The majority of gamblers LOOSE. (are wrong). The odds don't change that fact. Many idiot gamblers, Just like afterlife believers, bet on the highest promised payout. Not the most likely outcome.
I repeat, The odds on betting websites is determined by the % of gamblers on each position. Which is the gamblers amateur opinion of who might win.

Yup. You will never meet a poor bookmaker, and the only person who could lose money owning casinos was a certain D. J. Trump.

Gambling's for fools. As Lemmy so eloquently points out.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I guess inside that tinfoil hat you wear is an idea that Trump was commanding his troops to storm the capital building, with specific instructions to attack specific key areas, acting as the military leader of an insurrectionist conspiracy.

There is good evidence that Trump conspired with his cohort, which included Giuliani and Roger Stone, to work with groups like the Proud Boys (who arrived in tactical gear and moved in formation) to assault the Capitol with the express purpose of disrupting and delaying the constitutionally mandated certification of the electoral college.

This was presented by the Congressional investigation. Not sure if you watched it or followed up with other stories. There was certainly enough evidence to empanel a grand jury.

To say that it was merely Biden attempting to jail his political opponent is overlooking a tremendous amount of factual information. Its difficult for me to tell if that ignorance on your part is willful or not.

Oh goody, you can also snip the part where I accused Trump of an actual crime. Who else can snip that part?

Considering both of the above posts and the illegal fake electors scheme that originated in the White House you'd have to be blind to not see it was all parts of the plan.

Of course, here's another.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since everybody is determined to avoid the topic of Nawar al-Awlaki, here's a much easier topic to discuss.

Everyone tell me how proud they are of Harris for her wonderful first interview. She answered every question.

 

[ZiprHead]

Since everybody is determined to avoid the topic of Nawar al-Awlaki, here's a much easier topic to discuss.

It was addressed here.

If a person commits an act of treason as defined by Constitutional law, there is a correct process for accusing them of it. Using US troops and equipment to end their life without a trial is not that process, and Obama's actions opened the door wide for future extra-judicial killings of anyone the head of state considers a "terrorist".

Al-Alwaki was in Yemen, and it was not an option to arrest and try him. If a German-American went to the European theater in 1943 and took up arm for the Reich, would you also bellyache if he had been killed and not arrrested?

And here

Here's something that Trump should be charged with: Killing of Nawar al-Awlaki

The problem is, if we prosecute Trump for war crimes, we'd have to go there for Biden, Obama, and Bush the lesser.

The Supreme Court has granted presidents absolute immunity for crimes committed as official government acts. These killings were all committed by US forces under orders from the administration at the time. Try to keep up.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I guess inside that tinfoil hat you wear is an idea that Trump was commanding his troops to storm the capital building, with specific instructions to attack specific key areas, acting as the military leader of an insurrectionist conspiracy.

There is good evidence that Trump conspired with his cohort, which included Giuliani and Roger Stone, to work with groups like the Proud Boys (who arrived in tactical gear and moved in formation) to assault the Capitol with the express purpose of disrupting and delaying the constitutionally mandated certification of the electoral college.

This was presented by the Congressional investigation. Not sure if you watched it or followed up with other stories. There was certainly enough evidence to empanel a grand jury.

To say that it was merely Biden attempting to jail his political opponent is overlooking a tremendous amount of factual information. Its difficult for me to tell if that ignorance on your part is willful or not.

Oh goody, you can also snip the part where I accused Trump of an actual crime. Who else can snip that part?

I wasn’t addressing that crime. I was addressing the one you think is political lawfare. I was countering that assertion with actual evidence that was presented in Congress and other venues. You have seemed to address that yet. His other actual and potential crimes are other topics. There seem to be too many to keep track of.

 

[Elixir]

Are those recent numbers from Predictit.org ? Unfortunately, as you know Polymarket and Betfair are much bigger markets and hence their predictions are more "reliable" (i.e. more likely to match the future "reality").

Trump is currently favored 51-47 at Polymarket, and favored 50-47 at Betfair.

But is it not written:

I know I'm going to lose
And gambling's for fools
But that's the way Iike it, Baby
I don't want to live forever

And don't forget the joker...

It's more than likely that the sets "people who are dumb enough to bet" and "people who support Trump" have a sizable overlap, causing a bias in the markets.

Hey now! I have $9 and change into Predictit. If my ship comes in (EC goes Dem by 65-104) I’ll win Seventy bucks!!!
Trumpsucker bucks at that. If I double that, I can fill up my truck and try to drive it through the McDonalds drive-through.
Good times.