DescentBB

http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-ch ... ent-2015-8

dude can backpedal pretty quick for a big man.

I smell some butt kissing for a possible veep position.

Ok, so a guy who was shunned by the Republican Party is endorsing another guy the GOP hates. I don't see how this legitimizes Trump as a potential nominee.

vision wrote:Ok, so a guy who was shunned by the Republican Party is endorsing another guy the GOP hates. I don't see how this legitimizes Trump as a potential nominee.

well, it dovetails with his endorsement by LePage(governor of Maine, look him up if you wish to see where a Trump type candidate puts you) and David Duke this week.

vision wrote:Ok, so a guy who was shunned by the Republican Party is endorsing another guy the GOP hates. I don't see how this legitimizes Trump as a potential nominee.

Well, Trump needs to find a brash, popular, mouthy guy he can work with and he also gains another attack dog for throwing insults in his stead, especially if he ever wants to even have the appearance of being a moderate for the main election. Also, Christie is looking after his own self interests and is desperately trying to advance his political career, so why not latch himself onto the most likely GOP front-runner? If you don't think Trump is going to win the nomination vision, I've got a bridge to sell you in New Jersey.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02 ... rubio.html

Christie update: his political future is toast, as his main benefactor, Meg Whitman, just bailed on him, calling the endorsement things like, 'opportunistic', 'disgusting' and the like. Given that he would have ZERO political career without her backing, he might have just screwed the pooch.

She pretty much threw Trump under the bus too. However, if Trump does happen to win the presidency (Gawd I hope not), I don't hold out hope for the survival of HP if Trump follows form and takes revenge on Whitman with all the new found executive powers the Trumptards of this country gave him.

http://www.kiiitv.com/story/31338221/hp ... -president

I think I'm going to start doing something that most people should. Filter out everything that mentions trump. He's only getting into peoples' lives because they want him to be in their lives. He was entertaining for a while and now it's getting boring.

Ferno wrote:I think I'm going to start doing something that most people should. Filter out everything that mentions trump. He's only getting into peoples' lives because they want him to be in their lives. He was entertaining for a while and now it's getting boring.

No, it's because the media adores the ratings he brings and it's the ratings that will put Trump in the white house. Filtering will only make you a ostrich.

woodchip wrote:No, it's because the media adores the ratings he brings and it's the ratings that will put Trump in the white house.

That's for sure. Trump is like a reality show, a circus, and the OJ trial all mixed together to form a cacophony of what-the-actual-★■◆●.

Filtering will only make you a ostrich.

Well, I'd rather be an ostrich than get pulled under that riptide.

attaboy, Donald!! You have Louis Farrakan supporting your rejection of 'Jewish Money'......so there is some Black leader support!

What the hell is Jewish Money” is that when you pull some out of your pocket and it says…”oy vey , it’s hot in there”.

Seriously…what the hell is “Jewish Money”?

I think you will have to communicate with Brother Farrakan for that definition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/co ... ?tid=sm_fb

Hillary woes:

Democratic turnout has fallen drastically since 2008, the last time the party had a contested primary, with roughly three million fewer Democrats voting in the 15 states that held caucuses or primaries through Tuesday, according to unofficial election results.

In fact turn out for Rep/Dems is just the opposite of the 2008 election.

woodchip wrote:Hillary woes:

Democratic turnout has fallen drastically since 2008, the last time the party had a contested primary, with roughly three million fewer Democrats voting in the 15 states that held caucuses or primaries through Tuesday, according to unofficial election results.

In fact turn out for Rep/Dems is just the opposite of the 2008 election.

an interesting corollary to that fact. The increase in turnout seems, from surveys of GOP primary voters in Mass, SC, NH and a couple others, to be ENTIRELY due to Trump. Now, this doesn't equate to meaning those folks came to vote for Trump, but that about a third came over to the GOP primary to vote for Trump, another roughly third came out to vote AGAINST Trump and about 1/3 were intentionally trying to mess with the primary process, often by voting for Trump. Still, one takeaway I've heard from brighter folks than myself is that it seems likely that ANY election involving Trump, including a potential General, becomes a referendum on Trump. Given that he can't even pull a majority in the GOP, and has 60% negatives and a lot of footage now available of rants by him, and pointed comments against him by his own party, the LAST thing he wants is a referendum on Trump.

You should take over Dick Morris's job.

woodchip wrote:You should take over Dick Morris's job.

what, using White House access to impress hookers? That was the last real job that man had.

No...being totally wrong in your prognostications like he was.

I sure haven't been wrong about this year, except for maybe how late the GOP waited to panic over Trump. But the three-way split I called before the Primary season began, and I'll be sticking with my assertion that Trump will not be elected President. I note you blustered about terms for our wager, which you never provided, as well as avoiding my first suggested bet about Trump succeeding. You promised that 'after Super Tuesday' you'd be announcing your terms. Well?

callmeslick wrote:Well?

Trump didn't walk away with Super Tuesday. In fact, it was kind of a mess for an alleged front-runner. I read an opinion piece the other day on Reuters(?) that mentioned how the GOP is fractured between the establishment promoting Rubio and the ultra-conservative wing promoting Cruz. Trump wasn't mentioned at all. He's not even considered a conservative Republican at this point. I also like that Mark Levin podcast where he talks about Trump's amazing undetectability, having the highest negative rating in history from both parties.

Evidently those negatives don't mean much.

woodchip wrote:Evidently those negatives don't mean much.

It does. A lot. I means it's impossible for him to win the general election. Trump getting the GOP nomination is essentially a free ride for democrats. By supporting Rubio or Cruz you give the Republican party a fighting chance (a really good chance, actually). If you want to support a candidate because you like him, great. Do that. But if you want to change which party controls the White House then you need to make sacrifices. Just sayin.'

I think TC had a good post in another thread:

On Super Tuesday, more Republican voters came out to vote for Trump than Democrats did for either Hillary OR Sanders.

So vision, if you want to continue to be delusional thru logic, be my guest.

woodchip wrote:

On Super Tuesday, more Republican voters came out to vote for Trump than Democrats did for either Hillary OR Sanders.

So vision, if you want to continue to be delusional thru logic, be my guest.

I don't see how this relates to anything. The GOP nomination process is in turmoil whereas the Democratic nomination, statistically, is going to Mrs. Clinton. Because of the incredible fracturing of the Republican Party, GOP voters are much more invested in the primary process than Democrats. The numbers in the primaries are not reflective of the general election and never have been.

The basic fact that woody is conveniently overlooking is that primaries tend to bring out only the most fervent supporters of a particular candidate (or perhaps fervent haters of another candidate). The general electorate don't get all that interested until November itself rolls around. That's especially true in states like mine with bull★■◆● closed primaries, where depending on how you're registered you might be locked into choosing between people you don't give a damn about, or may not even have any choices at all. Great, so Trump can rile up the masses of rabid drooling idiots out there. Maybe he has enough of them to win the nomination. But tell me, where will he be then, facing some of the highest negative-perception numbers by the general electorate of any candidate in history?

callmeslick wrote: I note you blustered about terms for our wager, which you never provided, as well as avoiding my first suggested bet about Trump succeeding. You promised that 'after Super Tuesday' you'd be announcing your terms. Well?

What were the terms you stated in the wager again?

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote: I note you blustered about terms for our wager, which you never provided, as well as avoiding my first suggested bet about Trump succeeding. You promised that 'after Super Tuesday' you'd be announcing your terms. Well?

What were the terms you stated in the wager again?

the original wager, made in September of last year was this:
). I stand ready to wager $5000 to the charity of your choice versus only $500 of your cash to a similar choice by myself if you are wrong, that Trump will not be elected POTUS in 2016. Feel free to put money where mouth is.

no money came forward.....I'll leave others to judge the mouth part. Now, I would think, in the interest of fairness, the current odds should be no better than 3 to 1, which I'll gladly offer Woodchip. I'll drop my suggested donation to $3,000, versus $1000 from woody, or will stick with the original proposed 500 bucks from him, with me gladly offering $1500.

oh, and I bumped the original thread, containing the wager, to the front page. I think my crystal ball was working right well that week. Pretty good thread, overall....heck, we only got edited by moderators two or three times.

yeah, I don't really care about being edited. It doesn't matter, especially since some arbitrariness has started to sneak in.

I'd sure like to see Woodster make good on the wager. Let's see if he's a man of his word.

well, to be fair, Ferno, he never accepted the bet. That the Trump bravado is all hat and no cattle in the same sense Trump's claims of success are should take no one by surprise.

So by not taking your bet means "All talk and no hat" eh? Well here's the bet I'll offer you slick, since you came into your inheritance and you are now making "8 figures" off it:

Turns out his major investment account, which does make 8 figures is ALSO set up as POD, to me

So here's the bet, if Trump wins the GOP nomination I bet you 500.00 he wins the presidency. If he does then you pay me 50,000.00. If not I pay the 500.00 to the same charity I did last time. Fair bet based on income.

Ferno wrote:yeah, I don't really care about being edited. It doesn't matter, especially since some arbitrariness has started to sneak in.

I'd sure like to see Woodster make good on the wager. Let's see if he's a man of his word.

And why would you think otherwise? Last bet slick and I had, I lost and paid 5x what the bet was to Fisher House. Perhaps you would like to make a bet also? See if you are all talk also.

at 1000-1, I obviously won't take the odds, but it is nice of you to make a nod to income inequality.

Didn't think it was a matter of odds, rather certainty of who wins.

no, it was that my level of certainty doesn't run Trump down to a 1-1000 chance. My 3-1 was more than fair, but, as I noted, you do make the point about income inequality. You wish to 'level the playing field, even for a PERSONAL transaction. You might well be a Sanders voter.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:yeah, I don't really care about being edited. It doesn't matter, especially since some arbitrariness has started to sneak in.

I'd sure like to see Woodster make good on the wager. Let's see if he's a man of his word.

And why would you think otherwise? Last bet slick and I had, I lost and paid 5x what the bet was to Fisher House. Perhaps you would like to make a bet also? See if you are all talk also.

Okay, since you seem to want to put your money where your mouth is.

If trump wins the presidency, I will donate 500.00 to whatever charity you choose.

If trump loses, you buy me a new PC with whatever specs I ask for.

Just to be clear as the person most directly responsible for the continued operation of this site; I do not condone these bets.

Slicks original proposal of "to be donated to a charity of the winners choice" I'm willing to tolerate, but betting for personal gain is probably against the hosting terms of service so I would appreciate it if you just don't.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:yeah, I don't really care about being edited. It doesn't matter, especially since some arbitrariness has started to sneak in.

I'd sure like to see Woodster make good on the wager. Let's see if he's a man of his word.

And why would you think otherwise? Last bet slick and I had, I lost and paid 5x what the bet was to Fisher House. Perhaps you would like to make a bet also? See if you are all talk also.

Okay, since you seem to want to put your money where your mouth is.

If trump wins the presidency, I will donate 500.00 to whatever charity you choose.

If trump loses, you buy me a new PC with whatever specs I ask for.

Nah Ferny, I don't make bets like that with a working man. Slick is another matter. I wanted to see if he really had the kind of money like he talks about. Guess he is all hat and no cattle. And slick, instead of discussing this further on the board, you can PM me. I give you special dispensation to do so.

woodchip wrote:Perhaps you would like to make a bet also?

Nah Ferny, I don't make bets like that with a working man.

all talk, no drive.