|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 13 2016 02:58 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 02:56 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 02:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 02:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Anyway. Sanders supporters apparently intend at 85% to vote for Clinton so I believe the race is basically over. Another poster offered betting me a 90-day ban over this a couple weeks ago so I assume this is allowed. I'm confident Trump is going to beat Hillary in November. If Trump loses to Hillary, then I will accept a 90-day ban. If Hillary loses to Trump, then you accept a 90-day ban. If either isn't one of the candidates in November for any reason (Trump gets assassinated, Hillary is indicted etc etc) the bet is null and void. Willing to bet on this? I will take this. LOL is that possible for a mod? great I accept the deal then with Kwark Bill if you're down too I'll still bet you So the only difference is if I lose it goes up to a 180 day ban for me. Damn, can we up that to 270 then if i bet against you ? It would be 180 because Bill hasn't responded yet, but are you actually interested in this bet? Clintons odds of winning are 3:1 btw. brexit remain was actually similar on electionbettingodds.com recommended to me by eieio but then damn betters got rekt i distinctly remember it being 75/25 the day before the vote
To be honest I could definitely see that those betting odds were not accurate. Remain was obviously the favorite but the fact that the people who vote are the ones who were most strongly pro-Leave, while the polls were quite close to 50-50, means that the Leave side had a better chance than the odds were giving it credit for.
|
Hmm, lots of skin is already in the game, I wonder if I should join in on these bets I inspired :$
|
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind."
|
On July 13 2016 03:02 farvacola wrote:
Hmm, lots of skin is already in the game, I wonder if I should join in on these bets I inspired :$
Personally I stick to sigbets and avoid banbets in general. It's too painful to lose and not really much fun to see someone banned over that sort of thing.
|
On July 13 2016 03:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 02:58 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 02:56 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 02:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 02:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Anyway. Sanders supporters apparently intend at 85% to vote for Clinton so I believe the race is basically over. Another poster offered betting me a 90-day ban over this a couple weeks ago so I assume this is allowed. I'm confident Trump is going to beat Hillary in November. If Trump loses to Hillary, then I will accept a 90-day ban. If Hillary loses to Trump, then you accept a 90-day ban. If either isn't one of the candidates in November for any reason (Trump gets assassinated, Hillary is indicted etc etc) the bet is null and void. Willing to bet on this? I will take this. LOL is that possible for a mod? great I accept the deal then with Kwark Bill if you're down too I'll still bet you So the only difference is if I lose it goes up to a 180 day ban for me. Damn, can we up that to 270 then if i bet against you ? It would be 180 because Bill hasn't responded yet, but are you actually interested in this bet? Clintons odds of winning are 3:1 btw. brexit remain was actually similar on electionbettingodds.com recommended to me by eieio but then damn betters got rekt i distinctly remember it being 75/25 the day before the vote To be honest I could definitely see that those betting odds were not accurate. Remain was obviously the favorite but the fact that the people who vote are the ones who were most strongly pro-Leave, while the polls were quite close to 50-50, means that the Leave side had a better chance than the odds were giving it credit for.
It was George Soros shorting the pound again that did it
On July 13 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:02 farvacola wrote:
Hmm, lots of skin is already in the game, I wonder if I should join in on these bets I inspired :$ Personally I stick to sigbets and avoid banbets in general. It's too painful to lose and not really much fun to see someone banned over that sort of thing.
For the most part I agree
|
On July 13 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind."
Sounds like you want to make a bet....for old times sake, ehh?
|
On July 13 2016 03:02 farvacola wrote:
Hmm, lots of skin is already in the game, I wonder if I should join in on these bets I inspired :$
no, let everyone else get banned until its just you and me baby
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 13 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind."
id make a bet that we would see a civil war within the next 5 years, though by that time, im probably not on TL anymore :/
|
On July 13 2016 03:00 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 02:58 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 02:56 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 02:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 02:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Anyway. Sanders supporters apparently intend at 85% to vote for Clinton so I believe the race is basically over. Another poster offered betting me a 90-day ban over this a couple weeks ago so I assume this is allowed. I'm confident Trump is going to beat Hillary in November. If Trump loses to Hillary, then I will accept a 90-day ban. If Hillary loses to Trump, then you accept a 90-day ban. If either isn't one of the candidates in November for any reason (Trump gets assassinated, Hillary is indicted etc etc) the bet is null and void. Willing to bet on this? I will take this. LOL is that possible for a mod? great I accept the deal then with Kwark Bill if you're down too I'll still bet you So the only difference is if I lose it goes up to a 180 day ban for me. Damn, can we up that to 270 then if i bet against you ? It would be 180 because Bill hasn't responded yet, but are you actually interested in this bet? Clintons odds of winning are 3:1 btw. brexit remain was actually similar on electionbettingodds.com recommended to me by eieio but then damn betters got rekt i distinctly remember it being 75/25 the day before the vote Makes you think about the accuracy in polling  I'm only mentioning this because it should be 300 day ban if Trump wins and 90 if Clinton wins. But if GG wants 1:1 then good for him.
It's okay if i lose good on them I think it's hilarious anyways
I mentioned a few days ago I already had 100$ on the line with a friend I took that at 1:1 odds too -shrug- YOLO ^.^
On July 13 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind."
Explain this joke to me!
|
On July 13 2016 03:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 02:58 kapibara-san wrote:On July 13 2016 02:56 CorsairHero wrote:On July 13 2016 02:54 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:52 Godwrath wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:46 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 02:45 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 13 2016 02:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Anyway. Sanders supporters apparently intend at 85% to vote for Clinton so I believe the race is basically over. Another poster offered betting me a 90-day ban over this a couple weeks ago so I assume this is allowed. I'm confident Trump is going to beat Hillary in November. If Trump loses to Hillary, then I will accept a 90-day ban. If Hillary loses to Trump, then you accept a 90-day ban. If either isn't one of the candidates in November for any reason (Trump gets assassinated, Hillary is indicted etc etc) the bet is null and void. Willing to bet on this? I will take this. LOL is that possible for a mod? great I accept the deal then with Kwark Bill if you're down too I'll still bet you So the only difference is if I lose it goes up to a 180 day ban for me. Damn, can we up that to 270 then if i bet against you ? It would be 180 because Bill hasn't responded yet, but are you actually interested in this bet? Clintons odds of winning are 3:1 btw. brexit remain was actually similar on electionbettingodds.com recommended to me by eieio but then damn betters got rekt i distinctly remember it being 75/25 the day before the vote To be honest I could definitely see that those betting odds were not accurate. Remain was obviously the favorite but the fact that the people who vote are the ones who were most strongly pro-Leave, while the polls were quite close to 50-50, means that the Leave side had a better chance than the odds were giving it credit for.
That was the report coming out of Nate Silver, saying that the polling for the vote mirrored the outcome. There was a strong reality distortion field around that vote.
|
On July 13 2016 03:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind." Sounds like you want to make a bet....for old times sake, ehh?
This is my master plan. Also, I am a long suffering Red Sox fan and we don’t bet on things.
|
OMG Lynch, please stop digging your own hole. This is painful to watch.
|
United States43271 Posts
On July 13 2016 03:00 amazingxkcd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 02:56 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 02:52 kapibara-san wrote:
its whatevz on the scale of things
tbh clinton could choke out a dude and id still want her in office over trump Pretty much. If it emerged that Clinton was literally for sale and that foreign governments could simply buy US government policy from her if she won I'd still trust those foreign governments over Trump. And I'm center right by any standard that doesn't force me to be really obsessively interested in abortions to qualify. I vote for the Conservatives in the UK. Trump is a trainwreck of populism and a fetishistic need to quench feelings of inadequacy created by the erosion of the privilege of the white Christian male in American society. so let me get this straight. you trust foreign governments who would do everything they can to abuse said information than a man who wants to put america first? Wew lad
Most foreign governments have a vested interest in the continuation of the postwar stability created by the American superpower. They're generally rational actors who understand that America isn't going anywhere and that the America dominated world has been an unprecedented period of global peace and prosperity. Trump's ideas for America seem far, far more likely to undermine that than foreign governments. Trump's brand of insecure and antagonistic populism which demands that the rest of the world be constantly cowed to try and help provincial Americans overcome their own failings is far more likely to destroy the position of America in the world than foreign governments.
Take Trump on Iran for example. The United States and Iran have no fundamental conflict, Iran is certainly a far more reasonable partner in the region than Saudi Arabia, our current partner and the root of the global Wahhabism, as well as being a natural counterbalance to SA in the region. Bush rejected and snubbed Iran in 2001 in favour of building an Iraq which could act as the American proxy, a policy which doesn't need any further criticism. Obama has done a lot of work to undo 30 years of failed policy in the Middle East and Trump is constantly trying to undermine that with the kind of rhetoric we're used to hearing from North Korea. Hell, shortly after the Iran deal a few US sailors accidentally went into Iranian territorial waters, were picked up, interviewed and returned. Trump was shouting about how the US should be threatening the death and destruction of Iran if they didn't get home safely while Kerry was able to get them back with just a phone call. Trump is a madman who gives the right a bad name.
|
On July 13 2016 03:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind." Sounds like you want to make a bet....for old times sake, ehh?
I've thought about it. There'd have to be something like at least 5-1 odds (ie five other posters would be adversely affected) on the other end of my bet. The reality is that I'm too valuable and important.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 13 2016 03:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:00 amazingxkcd wrote:On July 13 2016 02:56 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 02:52 kapibara-san wrote:
its whatevz on the scale of things
tbh clinton could choke out a dude and id still want her in office over trump Pretty much. If it emerged that Clinton was literally for sale and that foreign governments could simply buy US government policy from her if she won I'd still trust those foreign governments over Trump. And I'm center right by any standard that doesn't force me to be really obsessively interested in abortions to qualify. I vote for the Conservatives in the UK. Trump is a trainwreck of populism and a fetishistic need to quench feelings of inadequacy created by the erosion of the privilege of the white Christian male in American society. so let me get this straight. you trust foreign governments who would do everything they can to abuse said information than a man who wants to put america first? Wew lad Most foreign governments have a vested interest in the continuation of the postwar stability created by the American superpower. They're generally rational actors who understand that America isn't going anywhere and that the America dominated world has been an unprecedented period of global peace and prosperity. Trump's ideas for America seem far, far more likely to undermine that than foreign governments. Trump's brand of insecure and antagonistic populism which demands that the rest of the world be constantly cowed to try and help provincial Americans overcome their own failings is far more likely to destroy the position of America in the world than foreign governments. Take Trump on Iran for example. The United States and Iran have no fundamental conflict, Iran is certainly a far more reasonable partner in the region than Saudi Arabia, our current partner and the root of the global Wahhabism, as well as being a natural counterbalance to SA in the region. Bush rejected and snubbed Iran in 2001 in favour of building an Iraq which could act as the American proxy, a policy which doesn't need any further criticism. Obama has done a lot of work to undo 30 years of failed policy in the Middle East and Trump is constantly trying to undermine that with the kind of rhetoric we're used to hearing from North Korea. Hell, shortly after the Iran deal a few US sailors accidentally went into Iranian territorial waters, were picked up, interviewed and returned. Trump was shouting about how the US should be threatening the death and destruction of Iran if they didn't get home safely while Kerry was able to get them back with just a phone call. Trump is a madman who gives the right a bad name.
so you're concerned about keeping the status quo? fair enough if you're fine with that.
|
Lynch has said 'I cant answer that' 75 times so far.
|
On July 13 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:05 farvacola wrote:On July 13 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind." Sounds like you want to make a bet....for old times sake, ehh? I've thought about it. There'd have to be something like at least 5-1 odds (ie five other posters would be adversely affected) on the other end of my bet. The reality is that I'm too valuable and important.
A fitting refusal 
And to KwarK's point, I'm not sure he's even really supporting "the status quo" so much as he's supporting "not-Trump." The two are related but different I think.
|
On July 13 2016 03:14 zeo wrote:
Lynch has said 'I cant answer that' 75 times so far.
What about "I don't have that information right now" or "it depends on information I decline to specify."
I mean she doesn't have to look like a complete shill but she definitely isn't doing a lot of good for herself or Hillary right now.
|
On July 13 2016 03:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2016 03:05 farvacola wrote:On July 13 2016 03:04 xDaunt wrote:
If Trump wins, we need to rename GGTemplar to "Divine Wind." Sounds like you want to make a bet....for old times sake, ehh? I've thought about it. There'd have to be something like at least 5-1 odds (ie five other posters would be adversely affected) on the other end of my bet. The reality is that I'm too valuable and important. A fitting refusal And to KwarK's point, I'm not sure he's even really supporting "the status quo" so much as he's supporting "not-Trump." The two are related but different I think.
yea
i'd vote for an improvement over the status quo if i thought one was a viable option
maybe in 4 years, maybe in 8... i'll be patient...
|
On July 13 2016 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 03:14 zeo wrote:
Lynch has said 'I cant answer that' 75 times so far. What about "I don't have that information right now" or "it depends on information I decline to specify." I mean she doesn't have to look like a complete shill but she definitely isn't doing a lot of good for herself or Hillary right now.
"I can't answer that" is a really stupid response because it invites follow up questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
