If Cruz is the nominee I'll have to fly to Vegas to get down what I would want on dems winning election
-
Comment -
nothing has changed. President Trump. Get used to it.Originally posted by The KrakenComment -
100%. Well, no need to go to Vegas but I'm down with fading Cruz for a monster bet.Originally posted by mcdonae101Comment -
Go get down on Trump +520 to win election.Originally posted by DwightShruteComment -
GOP to go to Brokered Convention. Who are they going to pick?Comment -
Trump is going to be "the man of the people". Hillary will be "part of the establishment".Originally posted by d2bets
I think that is a great value bet.Comment -
newest news. The spread is getting bigger.Originally posted by d2betsComment -
What do you make of Cruz being +400 for nomination but +2000 for presidency. He's really a 4-1 dog if he gets nomination?Originally posted by d2betsComment -
Brokered Convention Priced in. As well as Trumps lead. Then the fact that he can't beat Clinton.Originally posted by smoke a bowlComment -
Get ready for a trump revenge tactic by running third party as an independent if he gets stifled by the GOP party handing the election over to Clinton
Comment -
That math is about 3 to 1. Sounds about right.Originally posted by smoke a bowlComment -
He better start soon.Originally posted by jordanft19Get ready for a trump revenge tactic by running third party as an independent if he gets stifled by the GOP party handing the election over to ClintonComment -
Right, I'm a retard. Of course that's +300 but isn't that high?Originally posted by d2betsComment -
Who?Originally posted by smoke a bowlComment -
Your handle would suggest that you're high...Originally posted by smoke a bowlComment -
Well now he's back to +470 so it's getting in the ballpark now. got a little -440 but was being to greedy for too long.Comment -
Some boring ass white guy from Ohio that I think can get lucky if the chips fall right.Originally posted by bettilimbroke999Comment -
how have Maine results come in while they r still caucusing?Comment -
lmaoOriginally posted by ACoochyComment -
Black bear mauling.Originally posted by mcdonae101Comment -
As long as Rubio loses I am cool. Could go with Trump Cruz or KasichComment -
Eh who knows again I am operating on the assumption that the GOP actually wants their candidate to have a chance to win...they can nominate Cruz or Rubio or Kasich or Joe Blow to bend over in November but if they want a snowball's chance in hell of winning (and their odds get longer ever year as the wetbacks and welfare abusers take over the country) then there's only one choiceOriginally posted by smoke a bowl
For those of you mental midgets who will vote Hillary in November here's a taste of your future President Hillary....enjoy!
Comment -
I agree.Originally posted by bettilimbroke999Eh who knows again I am operating on the assumption that the GOP actually wants their candidate to have a chance to win...they can nominate Cruz or Rubio or Kasich or Joe Blow to bend over in November but if they want a snowball's chance in hell of winning (and their odds get longer ever year as the wetbacks and welfare abusers take over the country) then there's only one choice
For those of you mental midgets who will vote Hillary in November here's a taste of your future President Hillary....enjoy!
Comment -
You wanna talk about unfair then get back to me once Bush jnr has been indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity...Originally posted by bettilimbroke999Eh who knows again I am operating on the assumption that the GOP actually wants their candidate to have a chance to win...they can nominate Cruz or Rubio or Kasich or Joe Blow to bend over in November but if they want a snowball's chance in hell of winning (and their odds get longer ever year as the wetbacks and welfare abusers take over the country) then there's only one choice
For those of you mental midgets who will vote Hillary in November here's a taste of your future President Hillary....enjoy!
Yeah its unfair. Deal with it..Comment -
[IMG]https://****************************/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12321390_971187509583288_901605817171592 276_n.jpg?oh=e5eb892f06140cb541db8ae9891 aaa68&oe=5763E796[/IMG]Originally posted by bettilimbroke999Eh who knows again I am operating on the assumption that the GOP actually wants their candidate to have a chance to win...they can nominate Cruz or Rubio or Kasich or Joe Blow to bend over in November but if they want a snowball's chance in hell of winning (and their odds get longer ever year as the wetbacks and welfare abusers take over the country) then there's only one choice
For those of you mental midgets who will vote Hillary in November here's a taste of your future President Hillary....enjoy!
Comment -
They all lie, Dwight
Nothing new or surprising hereComment -
They don't all come out and say they didn't lie tho lolOriginally posted by The KrakenComment -
Hillary sets the gold standard...even when you 100% catch her in lies on basically everything she's ever said it's just laughed off...we might as well elect Casey AnthonyOriginally posted by The KrakenComment -
Uh huh well he was re-elected in Nov 2004 so apparently the American public didnt have much of a problem with the 2003 invasion of Iraq (hindsight 20/20) and oh by the way Hillary supported the War in Iraq and cast her vote for authorizing war with Iraq whilst in the Senate in 2002. Of course whenever the shit hit the fan she changed her mind.Originally posted by ACoochyComment -
Hillary sets the gold standard? Really?Originally posted by bettilimbroke999
Over 500,000 people have died as a direct result of the IRAQ war, and people are freaking out about 4 dead in Benghazi
Over half a million people dead as the result of a republican president and his vice war profiteer, and you want to focus on Bengahzi, and that Hillary is a liar?
Where are those WMD's that caused those 500,000 people to die?????
Go fukk yourself toolComment -
She was all for war with Iraq in 2002 and voted accordingly as part of the Senate (representing NY) which authorized war with Iraq....now of course after the fact she changed her mind but back in 2002 she was ready to invade Iraq herselfOriginally posted by The KrakenComment -
She was one vote, and she admitted it was a mistake.
It was the Bush administration that premised the entire war on the lie of WMD's, and since 500,000 people have died.
I doubt I would vote for her, but she is by and far the most qualified individual to ever run.
We could do a lot worse than Hilary Clinton, we could probably do a lot better as well.Comment -
Originally posted by The Kraken
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Comment -
In 2002, Bill was the voice of reason. One of the few politicians that opposed the war. What he said in 1998 is fairly irrelevant, since he made many statements regarding the war from that point on
He's the one that said "it doesn't matter how precise your bombs are, when they explode, innocent people will die"
Turned out to be spot onComment -
Originally posted by The Kraken
Comment
