ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

I have not bet on Trump. Although I obviously wish I did when he was an underdog back when the current administration was still successfully hiding Biden's cognitive disfunction. If I had, I could either lock in some nice arbitrage profit or ride a +EV ticket to the wire.

I think the current odds of Trump -215 (implied win probability of ~70%) is probably about right, so I won't be betting it now either as there's no edge. I generally refrain from betting on such huge favorites in general. I doubt those odds will slide back towards Harris, but if they do, I'd consider jumping on it then.
trump is currently -170 where i place…have seen it -154 as well.

shapiro has even pulled into 2nd as the vp pick behind kelly just ahead of cooper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heels Noir
Anybody interested in $100 wagers that Kalamalalala wins the popular vote?
I don't even know why they calculate that. I know it perpetuates a point of contention... I guess I just answered my own question.

I never say never... but, it's incredibly unlikely that the electoral college is replaced with popular vote election. The American public was not supposed to elect the president. Probably because the president had very little to do with the individual in a given state, county, town.
 
Make a list of things NOT LINKED to the profits from chattel slavery. If chattel slavery is abolished, or doesn't exist, then there is no civil war in the 1860s.
but that isn't necessarily true. The Confederate States might have chosen to secede for other reasons...and not that it matters, but there were other reasons. to consider seceding What is NOT a variable is that for whatever reason they seceded, that secession itself was why the war was fought. LINCOLN HIMSELF SAID SO. It wasn't fought over slavery. LINCOLN HIMSELF SAID SO. But I'm just saying this because lost cause daughters of conferacy socks and gloves Stonewall Jackson rabble rabble.

As long as you continue to argue what isn't being contested, you are going to continue to be wrong about why the war was waged.
 
Anybody interested in $100 wagers that Kalamalalala wins the popular vote?

Wouldnt surprise me with the amount of fuggin ID10Ts we have in this country. This former call girl covers so many categories...hookers, sluts, goo guzzlers, tricks, THOTs, Hoochie Mamas, butter faces, Jezebels, yacht girls, moan backs, etc. Add that to all the ID10Ts that will be voting based on race and racism.
 
Wouldnt surprise me with the amount of fuggin ID10Ts we have in this country. This former call girl covers so many categories...hookers, sluts, goo guzzlers, tricks, THOTs, Hoochie Mamas, butter faces, Jezebels, yacht girls, moan backs, etc. Add that to all the ID10Ts that will be voting based on race and racism.

🔥
 
I saw somewhere that van Jones keeps insisting that if Kamala Harris keeps getting derogatory comments, or racial slurs, or sexist racial slurs, all the black men in America are going to come out and vote for her. Like, they're going to take personal offense to it. I'm not sure how much of a prognostication that is, as far as being accurate.
 
It's absolutely, undeniably a fact. That is exactly how it all played-out. A president giving himself political cover doesn't affect what actually happened.
oh, is that what he told you? And you've waited until now to let the rest of the world know? Sorry, but I'm going to stick with his actual words and assume he meant them. There's no reason not to. Especially considering that the Emacipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the States being combatted. Slaves in non-Confederate States were still just as enslaved as they were before, because the EP was nothing more than war strategy. I think he meant what he said about the war not being about slavery.

Do you even realize that you're surmising about a scenario of no slavery on one hand to bolster your argument and then on the other hand using the reality of slavery to deny MY scenario of no slavery that bolsters mine? Trying to have it both ways isn't helping your credibility or your argument.

Address this for once instead of skirting it. There could have been secession for reasons other than slavery. That is a factual possibility, regardless of what actually took place (which again is not quite as simple as you know, slavery, but for the sake of argument we can say it was). OR, the Confederate States might have seceded just as they did without Lincoln going to war. He could have just said 'See ya'. But he didn't. The one non-variable in actuality, the only undeniable factor, was secession itself. I say no slavery, war maybe. As you like to say; no secession, no war.

And I'll retrace my steps a little for this rebuttal of the no slavery no war routine;

of course. And don't forget; no American Revolution, no country and therefor no Civil War. So the Civil War was fouight because of the American Revolution. No American Revolution, no war. But before that there was the colonization of America. No colonization, no States. The Civil War was fought because of the colonization of America. No colonization, no war. But then don't forget Columbus and his discovery of America. The Civil War was fought because Columbus discovered America. No discovery of America, no war. Therefor Columbus caused the Civil War. And on and on and on with irrelevant facts and completely idiotic arguments irrelevant to why the war was actually fought.
 
...hookers, sluts, goo guzzlers, tricks, THOTs, Hoochie Mamas, butter faces, Jezebels, yacht girls, moan backs, etc.
Donald Trump Wink GIF
 
oh, is that what he told you? And you've waited until now to let the rest of the world know? Sorry, but I'm going to stick with his actual words and assume he meant them. There's no reason not to. Especially considering that the Emacipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the States being combatted. Slaves in non-Confederate States were still just as enslaved as they were before, because the EP was nothing more than war strategy. I think he meant what he said about the war not being about slavery.

Do you even realize that you're surmising about a scenario of no slavery on one hand to bolster your argument and then on the other hand using the reality of slavery to deny MY scenario of no slavery that bolsters mine? Trying to have it both ways isn't helping your credibility or your argument.

Address this for once instead of skirting it. There could have been secession for reasons other than slavery. That is a factual possibility, regardless of what actually took place (which again is not quite as simple as you know, slavery, but for the sake of argument we can say it was). OR, the Confederate States might have seceded just as they did without Lincoln going to war. He could have just said 'See ya'. But he didn't. The one non-variable in actuality, the only undeniable factor, was secession itself. I say no slavery, war maybe. As you like to say; no secession, no war.

And I'll retrace my steps a little for this rebuttal of the no slavery no war routine;
No slavery, no war.

Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman... until he had the political power to act completely different. You're a Lost Cause defending the Lost Cause.
 
Do you even realize that you're surmising about a scenario of no slavery on one hand to bolster your argument and then on the other hand using the reality of slavery to deny MY scenario of no slavery that bolsters mine?
giphy.webp
 
I'm sad that he never throws in a "tantamount" in any of the responses I get.

That's a cool song lyric! "I was surmiiii-zing about a sce-NAR-ee-o of no SLAV-ER-REE... bomp-bomp-bomp-bomp-bom... on one hand!"

One thing is for certain... it's always about slavery.
 
Any chance a debate will happen between Trump and Harris?
I hope there are a few of them. Harris doesn't strike me as being as "proper" as Hillary Clinton. And, she was a prosecutor. She has experience bullshitting juries. She will throw more jabs and barbs back at Trump than anyone has before. I don't particularly like her at all. She incarcerated people (kept them incarcerated) for drug charges and indulged herself. But, I digress. For entertainment factors, I gotta believe that the debates would actually be fun to watch for a change. Maybe the DNC can get James Austin Johnson to play the Trump part in practice debates for optimal performance.
 
No slavery, no war.

Obama said marriage was between a man and a woman... until he had the political power to act completely different. You're a Lost Cause defending the Lost Cause.

gay marriage is why the Civil War was fought? Did obama only free the gays in the Confederate States?

I think you forgot something. You forgot to put thought into any of this. It might be time for you to go and visit Alice.
 
I hope there are a few of them. Harris doesn't strike me as being as "proper" as Hillary Clinton. And, she was a prosecutor. She has experience bullshitting juries. She will throw more jabs and barbs back at Trump than anyone has before. I don't particularly like her at all. She incarcerated people (kept them incarcerated) for drug charges and indulged herself. But, I digress. For entertainment factors, I gotta believe that the debates would actually be fun to watch for a change. Maybe the DNC can get James Austin Johnson to play the Trump part in practice debates for optimal performance.
she is a snake
 
I'm sad that he never throws in a "tantamount" in any of the responses I get.

That's a cool song lyric! "I was surmiiii-zing about a sce-NAR-ee-o of no SLAV-ER-REE... bomp-bomp-bomp-bomp-bom... on one hand!"

One thing is for certain... it's always about slavery.
I'm sorry words intimidate you so much.
 
Your pretentiousness is hilarious. I'm sure it enhances your verisimilitude. You learned history from johnnyrebsviagra.org... so, you are forgiven.
friendly tip. If you're trying to be funny, you should go back to posting George Carlin clips.

And I'm sorry a decent vocabulary always seems to threaten you. Did Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis have a good vocabulary, is that why big words scare you?
 
Saw this post on another board:

"The cosmic universe has a way of coming back with interesting story endings. You see it a lot in sports. The rise of MAGA with its roots directly traceable to the folks (birthers and Tea Party) across the US who were greatly horrified to have a black man elected president to have a story arc that ends with the election of a black female president could be one of those endings."
 
  • Love
Reactions: Heels Noir
Do you have to be a Trump cult member to get a prescription? Asking for a friend.
No, as that's not the target demographic. And don't worry, for those like yourself with a serious attack of tds, they have a mega maga dose to prescribe. Your friend just might get through this horribleness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2 and bluetoe
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT