invite response« First « Previous Comments 85 - 124 of 142 Next » Last » Search these comments
Versus one DINO triangulating Clintonista who failed to secure the much-advertised potential victory. In other words, Ossoff failed to win in the first round, which is likely his only chance of winning.
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. He has a better chance of winning the run-off than he ever did of winning the special election. Most knowledgeable people know that.
Zzzzzzzzz. @Patrick , want to note my bet for posterity? 10 for a win, I'll give JoeyJoeJoe 5 more if Ossoff wins by 3% or more if he takes it. I get no extras, even if Ossoff gets creamed by 5%+.
What happened to "destroying" Ossoff? You gave that up pretty quick, huh?
Yep, but only in a winner takes all election. It's funny how this is like the Republican Primary in Reverse; when Trump failed to win over 50% in some of those, but typically won by a substantial margin in a crowded field, the media, #NeverTrump, and the Dems was saying the exact opposite. See below.
It's actually nothing like that. The fact that you would pretend they are the same shows you don't understand what is going on at all. Ossoff may lose-it's a 50/50 proposition. If Trump had averaged 48% in the crowded primary field, I don't think anyone would have opined that he couldn't break 50% in a smaller field.
Except this wasn't an ordinary "Winner take all election", so your numbers are totally out of context. If it was a normal election, it wouldn't be held in April, and you'd be dancing for joy as a 20+ margin of victory in a regular Congressional election (AFTER party primaries were ONE official candidate is chosen by the major parties) in a solid red district would be a huge shakeup, which it isn't and wasn't.
Yep, but history has shown that these special elections can be predictive of the next mid-term elections. And these special election results are very ominous for Republicans.
I doubt a Billionaire who spent $66M of his own money to run needs to kowtow to Wall Street.
You doubt it? Is your head in the sand? It's happening in clear view of everyone as I write this. There is no need to speculate--just open your eyes.Lashkar_i_Trumpi says
Why couldn't Obama regulate Wall St.?
Uh, he did.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704684604575381120852746164
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
As opposed to Trump:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-plan-to-erase-obama-era-wall-street-rules-is-more-generous-than-even-banks-asked-for/2017/04/20/172326f2-25e9-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.0aa921bda730
"House Republicans are launching an aggressive effort to undo regulations put in place under President Barack Obama to rein in Wall Street, potentially offering the industry sweeping relief from dozens of rules"
Once again the truth is the exact opposite of what you believe.
Strategist
2017 Apr 23, 7:54pm
Trump is a racist and sexist jerk. And he is failing because the powers that be won't let him spend money. And who knows, maybe they are right. He can't do a border tax because we are already close to a recession and labor is losing profit share of GDP already. Trump is a schmuck and a royal idiot. Or he thinks he is royal and is just an idiot.
Hello Mr. Anderson. Welcome back. We missed your entertaining posts.
Nothing changed while you were gone. Muslims are still killing us, but we have started to hit back.
Smart people peg it at about 50/50.
What did 'smart people' peg trump election odds at?
When Trump finally fails big, and is either arrested and/or impeached and/or ridden out of office on a rail, because of his gross incompetence, gross corruption, treason and malfeasance, I will take no joy, as it will be a sad day for all Americans (even ignorant Trump supporters) and a sad day for America that will confirm the huge set-back we're now enduring.
marcus
2017 Apr 23, 9:10pm
What did 'smart people' peg trump election odds at?
About 33%.
Many dImbulbs rightwingers will gleefully tell you that that means they were wrong.
Patrick , want to note my bet for posterity? 10 for a win, I'll give JoeyJoeJoe 5 more if Ossoff wins by 3% or more if he takes it. I get no extras, even if Ossoff gets creamed by 5%+.
Sure, noted.
Patrick thinks about the possibilities of guaranteeing bets online...
What year is this, 2006?
The same 2006 when I was making bank using online betting exchanges with penny vig? Legally?
Oh yea, that was before the Republican President signed The Republican Safe Port Act into law, with the all important and urgent UIGEA rider which squashed that whole deal.
You Republican half-wits just love trading away My Liberty, for your Temporary Security.
You deserve what is coming, but do I?
Republican lawmakers and presidents are here from the government, and they're here to help, right guys?
WAKE THE FUCK UP
Shaman
2017 Apr 24, 8:25am
Errc, you're what we like to call a single issue voter. Some people from the Bible Belt are that way on abortion or gay marriage. You're concerned about pot and that's pretty much it. I consider it a peripheral issue, important but not critical to national politics. Looking at the big picture, we are still ahead with shutting down the Islamist invasion and rolling back regressive policies implemented by Obummer.
Quigley, you are what we (we? How many of you are there?) like to call the willfully ignorant and confused poster. I vote on all issues, the least of many important include "pot". Most importantly I vote on Constitutional Rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This includes Healthcare as the most important one, and protecting the Individual from being harmed by Republican Fascist legislation like Obamacare which was penned by Republicans at The Heritage Foundation, and supported by almost all Republicans.
Gorsuch on the Supreme Court?
A wonderful thing. An able and competent jurist.
Maybe. If you were a corporation that loves Sharia, hates Freedom, and loathes the Constitution .
However, you seem to be merely a person, so you ought be protesting his appointment out of a healthy fear of Corporations causing you harm without any recourse.
Gary Anderson
2017 Apr 24, 9:29am
Hello Mr. Anderson. Welcome back. We missed your entertaining posts.
Nothing changed while you were gone. Muslims are still killing us, but we have started to hit back.
I see nothing has changed. You are still racist.
Gary Anderson
2017 Apr 24, 9:32am
Hey Gary, you're back after a 2 month hiatus, how was your stay in the loonie bin??
My blood pressure went down. But the fascists in power are still a threat to all of us. Let's hope they are corralled in by congress. Even congressional leaders from border states think the wall is a huge waste of money and offensive to Mexico. Did you know Mexico possesses the capability of creating a nuclear weapon? It isn't too funny once you know that.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 9:42am
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. He has a better chance of winning the run-off than he ever did of winning the special election. Most knowledgeable people know that.
So Ossoff won the seat already? But then why are you talking about a run-off, then? Good luck winning a district that's been solid red since the late 70s.
As for a higher chance of winning, that's the exact opposite of what the understanding was both before the election by everybody on all sides, and still the opposite of what most are predicting. The people who are saying Ossoff has a hoot in hell in the run-off are partisan Democrats.
What happened to "destroying" Ossoff? You gave that up pretty quick, huh?
Are you taking this generous bet or not? Non-General elections tend to favor the party that's not in power. I know there are exta superduper Butthurt Lefties out there, and they may come out in far higher numbers. But the Republican will still win.
It's actually nothing like that. The fact that you would pretend they are the same shows you don't understand what is going on at all. Ossoff may lose-it's a 50/50 proposition. If Trump had averaged 48% in the crowded primary field, I don't think anyone would have opined that he couldn't break 50% in a smaller field.
Yep, but history has shown that these special elections can be predictive of the next mid-term elections. And these special election results are very ominous for Republicans.
Yep, but there's no sign of that in the past two special elections. Both democratic attempts were beaten off handily in Kansas and Ohio. In Georgia,
Price won his district by 24% in November, before he resigned. Mere months ago.
Strategist
2017 Apr 24, 9:54am
Even congressional leaders from border states think the wall is a huge waste of money and offensive to Mexico. Did you know Mexico possesses the capability of creating a nuclear weapon? It isn't too funny once you know that.
LOL. So if we build the wall, they will nuke us. ROFL.
Strategist
2017 Apr 24, 9:56am
Hello Mr. Anderson. Welcome back. We missed your entertaining posts.
Nothing changed while you were gone. Muslims are still killing us, but we have started to hit back.I see nothing has changed. You are still racist.
Oops. Did I say Muslims? I meant the Jews and the Buddhists. Sorry.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 10:00am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
Bahahahahahahahahahaa, Frank the Forever Buddy of Wall Street. Still haven't finalized the regulations, which were all red tape that dindu nothin' and were designed to not to jack shit.
What's Timothy Geitner doing these days?
Cash in now, honey, Cash in nowwwww.... Cash in now Baby... Oh Oh Oh...
Timmuh became President of Warburg Pincus. Jack Lew came from Citigroup. Those were Obama's two Treasury Secretaries. Lew went on to become Citigroup's Chief of Staff to help 'guide' Obama.
joeyjojojunior says
Once again the truth is the exact opposite of what you believe.
Elizabeth Warren doesn't agree. She says Banks are BIgger and more risk prone than they were before 2008. Must have been those 8 years of Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/elizabeth-warren-obama-banks
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/elizabeth-warren-wells-fargo-lehman-banks-jail/
True or False: Obama's Administration had a horrible record of prosecuting financial crimes.
"Good luck winning a district that's been solid red since the late 70s."
I know!! That shows just how far the country's sentiment has changed in the first 100 days of Trump's administration. Dems have a 50/50 chance of winning a SOLID Republican district. That's why Republicans are freaking out about the midterms.
"As for a higher chance of winning, that's the exact opposite of what the understanding was both before the election by everybody on all sides, and still the opposite of what most are predicting. The people who are saying Ossoff has a hoot in hell in the run-off are partisan Democrats."
Except I already posted a link showing you that you are full of crap.
"Yep, but there's no sign of that in the past two special elections. Both democratic attempts were beaten off handily in Kansas and Ohio. In Georgia,
Price won his district by 24% in November, before he resigned. Mere months ago."
Exactly!!!!!! Isn't it amazing that this SOLID red district is now a toss up?? Dems have gained 20+ pts in both GA and KS districts. Republican Congressmen must be crapping their pants right about now. A 20 point swing in sentiment should translate to about 100 seat gain for Dems in 2018.
Now, granted, that's unlikely to happen. But Dem takeover of the House is certainly possible.
Still waiting for all of Trump's Wall St. regulation. Oh wait--he is DE-REGULATING.
If you thought Obama wasn't tough enough on banks/Wall St.--why the hell did you vote for the guy who is bending over for them night and day?
Why didn't the Democrats reinstate Glass-Steagall in 2009 when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency - they had a clear mandate after the 2008 Election?
-------------
Why haven't your beloved Republicans reinstated G-S?
What have you Republican Sharia jihadists done with your mandate? Why not address Terrorism, which everyone knows begins and ends in Saudi Arabia?
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 10:14am
Still waiting for all of Trump's Wall St. regulation. Oh wait--he is DE-REGULATING.
Why didn't Obama have a horrible record for prosecuting Financial Crimes during his two terms? The lowest number of prosecutions of white collar crimes in 20 years, after one of the greatest financial disasters - and the greatest Taxpayer Bailout - in World History. It should have been 10x the normal prosecutions.
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/398/
Jaime Dimon is not in jail but still running the same bank he did during the crisis.
We might never know why Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general, chose to let Wall Street off the hook with just a proverbial slap on the wrist. After six years as attorney general and a short break after leaving government last year, he recently rejoined his old Wall Street law firm, Covington & Burling, in Washington as a partner focused on litigation, complex investigations and regulatory matters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/business/dealbook/a-clue-to-the-scarcity-of-financial-crisis-prosecutions.html
We know why Failing New York Times, and so do you. Could it maybe, just possibly, be that Holder came from a Legal Firm whose specialty is white collar crimes, and went right back after leaving? Could it possibly be the big meeting Obama had with Big Banks in early 2009, when he told them he was the only thing between them and the mob. Then he launched a Health Care Insurance Company Subsidy to distract from regulating and prosecuting Wall Street.
Elizabeth Warren Certainly wasn't happy about Obama's track record.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/elizabeth-warren-obama-banks
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/elizabeth-warren-wells-fargo-lehman-banks-jail/
Are we talking about Obama or Trump here?
I thought Trump is the President
Like I said--if cracking down on Wall St. and the banks was one of issues you based your vote on, why did you pick the guy exponentially worse than Obama?
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 10:20am
Like I said--if cracking down on Wall St. and the banks was one of issues you based your vote on, why did you pick the guy exponentially worse than Obama?
Let's say Trump and Obama are equally bad. What was the other choice to Regulate Wall Street?
HILLARY CLINTON!?!?!?!?! LOL hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha Snoort hahahahahaha
Bill Weld and the Libertarians ??? hahahahahah
"Let's say Trump and Obama are equally bad. What was the other choice to Regulate Wall Street?"
You mean, let's lie and pretend they are the same? One regulated Wall St and banks. One is deregulating Wall St. and the banks.
Under no possible conditions could anyone ever say those two statements are the same.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 10:26am
Why didn't the Democrats reinstate Glass-Steagall in 2009 when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency - they had a clear mandate after the 2008 Election?
Errc, why did the Democrats win in 2008?
Why did they lose in 2009?
Clearly the media didn't understand probabilities, dependent variables, and typical margins of errors in Presidential polling.
538 gave Trump ~34% chance of winning. Which was correct.
Strategist
2017 Apr 24, 10:33am
About 33%.
Many dImbulbs rightwingers will gleefully tell you that that means they were wrong.
When probabilities are used, both sides are always right. Then who loses?
"Really??? Is that why they were oversampling by YYuuggee margins to try and keep Hillary in the lead in the polls??"
They weren't oversampling as you have been shown over and over. I'm afraid it's a bit too complicated for you to understand.
"Nate was WRONG throughout the complete election cycle, to keep using him as your "benchmark" is foolish."
Nate's opinion that Trump would melt down was wrong. Nate's models, however, were very good and his predictions based on them were well done.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 11:05am
Back to the original topic for a second:
KING: The Democratic Party seems to have no earthly idea why it is so damn unpopular
In other words, the Democratic Party has a favorability rating 11 points lower than Pence, nine points lower than Trump, and even one point lower than the GOP.
Their unfavorable rating is 17 points worse than Pence, five points worse than Trump, and four points worse than the GOP.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659?
The Democratic Party is less popular than Trump or Pence.
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/3_7_2017_tables.pdf
Why didn't the Democrats reinstate Glass-Steagall in 2009 when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency - they had a clear mandate after the 2008 Election?
Errc, why did the Democrats win in 2008?
Why did they lose in 2009?
I see. The Trumpcucks are reduced to comparing their idol to Bama and Clinton. Why did you answer my question with a question?
"Back to the original topic for a second"
What do you think the original topic is exactly?
Shaman
2017 Apr 24, 11:24am
Most importantly I vote on Constitutional Rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This includes Healthcare as the most important one, and protecting the Individual from being harmed by Republican Fascist legislation like Obamacare which was penned by Republicans at The Heritage Foundation, and supported by almost all Republicans.
Let's just examine this statement for accuracy. Constitutional rights like life
-nobody has a right to life. In fact, the mortality rate is and has always been 100%! What you have a right to is due process before the legal system takes away your life.
Liberty
Nobody has a right to that either! And what does it even mean? Freedom to do what you want? For sure that isn't allowed, and especially not guaranteed by any mysterious constitutional right.
Pursuit of happiness? Hah! It is to laugh. You're quoting Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence, not the bloody Constitution!
A right to Healthcare? Not currently, and not constitutionally!
You know, for someone who likes to go around calling people "willfully ignorant," you seem to fit the bill of lading.
Better lay off the pot.
Shaman
2017 Apr 24, 11:30am
Nate's models, however, were very good and his predictions based on them were well done
I guess you grade for "form" instead of accuracy, adherence to political norms instead of truth. Nate couldn't have been more wrong about everything related to this election.
He was looking at the size of Goliath, his huge spear and sword, and impenetrable armor. He should have been looking at David's sling and the fact that he was deadly accurate with a weapon that could fire nearly as fast as a .45 caliber round. Goliath never stood a chance.
"Sure thing Tatty. Nate had Hillary up in the 80% - 90% range up until the last day or two (when he had his "oh shit" moment). But keep believing the party line... "
Incorrect. Nate had HIllary in the 80% range when she had a 8-9% lead. When the Comey stuff came out and the lead shrunk to 4%, he adjusted the probability accordingly.
"And that would be a lie, as I showed over and over again, the history of all those oversampled polls are here, go refresh your memory:
https://patrick.net/users/Ironman"
The only thing you showed was your lack of understanding.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 12:07pm
What do you think the original topic is exactly?
"Trump is doing well so far"
Being viewed more favorably than the Democratic Party and the Media, his primary detractors, is an indicator of this.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Apr 24, 12:11pm
I see. The Trumpcucks are reduced to comparing their idol to Bama and Clinton. Why did you answer my question with a question?
"Socratic method" and "Comparing among choices".
To repeat, the only viable choice to Trump was $200k+/ Speech Hillary, who earned a total of $22M from her post-SOS 'speaking tour', with heavy appearances at Banks, from Goldman to Itau. Where she explained her "Public and Private Positions on Policies"
Oh, I forgot her "Private Position" on Simpson-Bowles:
At a speech for Morgan Stanley on April 18, 2013, Clinton praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan — which would reduce corporate tax rates while raising the Social Security age. “But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula,†she said.
"Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula,†she said."
Oh my Gawd! She said she agrees with the idea of reducing spending and incentivizing growth?? SCANDAL!!!!!!!!! SCANDAL!!!!!!!!!
I love that you continue to bring up Clinton, though. You do realize the election was almost 6 months ago, right?
« First « Previous Comments 85 - 124 of 142 Next » Last » Search these comments
Ended TPP, rightly tried to limit Muslim terrorist visas, increased deportation of illegal illegals (did I mention that they are here illegally?), limited H1b visas which depress US wages.
Health care was too big to deal with so far, but that's far from over.
Still absolutely zero proof of any Russian involvement in Trump's election.
A little disappointed that he fired missiles at Syria in response to gas attacks which Syria probably did not commit, but politically it was brilliant, pointing out the hypocrisy of the press: they complained he was doing nothing about Assad, then he does something and they complain about that as well. Lol, proves the elitist press is indeed the opposition party and absolutely nothing will ever satisfy them. They have no credibility.
Also disappointed that he has not called out Saudi sponsorship of worldwide terrorism.
I give Trump 7 out of 10 for performance so far.