Who Do You Think Will Win the 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

[Triple_D_Bet]

lol no, it was created when people in government actually looked out for your interest

you really don't realize how thankful you should be for it huh? Well, I know why, you live in California enjoy that lol

A government thinking it knows what's best for me isn't helpful, it's pettily grabbing for power...and besides, the system was set up on a bunch of assumptions which quickly proved to be false.

Yes, I'm having a difficult time realizing how thankful I should be with it, or why you should be thankful for it, since you seem unable to give any rational reason.

[MoMoneyMoVaughn]

liberalism is a mental disorder

who hijacked seaweeds account?

he's actually made a statement that I agree with

Does anyone else see the incredible irony in this statement lmfao?

"Them dang liberals" and liberalism are two different things.

[chipper]

Our next president will be a woman: either Hillary or Elizabeth Warren.

[Mr KLC]

Scott Walker is going to do well. Media is trying to do everything they can to bring him down now, before he has a campaign that picks up a full head of steam.

[brooks85]

Some changes work better slowly; I wouldn't say evolution is one of them, but regardless, some changes working better slowly doesn't mean all things must change slowly to be good

Poor decisions are poor decisions based on their lack of merit, not because of the speed with which they're enacted.

Hadn't heard of it called the cobra effect, but yes, I'm aware of unintended consequences, as I mentioned them above...I also asked you to identify what possible unintended consequences you thought this could bring about to justify your fear of it, and haven't heard anything yet. looks like you added some stuff.



Perhaps that's why democratic politicians support it (don't like using the term liberal, as that used to mean someone who embraced freedom and these guys are anything but that)...but as you point out here, it doesn't really matter if most of the country is voting democrat anyways does it? You correctly identify that the only chance for true change is an informed electorate; the current electoral system discourages this, as informed voters have little incentive to vote in many states, with their minimal votes and impact leading uninformed voters to see their views as meaningless and unworthy of investigation.

Keeping the electoral college does nothing but keep the current system in power; working around it makes it much easier for an informed minority to make its presence felt and grow.

I suggest you take some science classes considering that is the basis of evolution. 99.9% of changes in DNA do nothing helpful and in vast majority of cases are a hindrance of some kind. You ever see a frogs with 3 legs or humans with 4 arms? Think those DNA changes actually helped them...

Change needs to be slow, history shows us this over and over.

Who's going to win the GOP nomination?

sure as hell won't be Dr. Carson now because of his stupid gay comments, don't know what the hell he was thinking but commend him for not BSing his answer.

[rkelly110]

I was going to same the same person but for a different, more accurate albeit sad, reason.

People like rkelly,thor,scumbag,muldoon and their kin who have been brainwashed by their parents will vote left no matter what their stance is. The only thing hilary has to imply is republicans are greedy or evil, wave the same moral flag that usually works and they will eat it right up; again. Voters on the right are the same way except they made up for it with the drug war and Iraq War. Basically the democrats do tiny things that add up to ruining this nation(mainly revoking your rights), while the republicans drive a nail once a decade with tyrannical consequences.


The problem is there is just more of the dem sheep going out to vote. I used to think the electoral college was a scam... lol thank god for that or holy hell, couldn't even imagine bad this country would be with Californians and their genius ideas governing the nation.

Aww, I'm honored to be the 1st on your list. Shows I'm getting in your head. Love you too brooksy.

[brooks85]

Aww, I'm honored to be the 1st on your list. Shows I'm getting in your head. Love you too brooksy.

lol congrats you're the list of proven sheep and you're proud about it!

"iran wants to defend itself"

haha

[StackinGreen]

Scott Walker is going to do well. Media is trying to do everything they can to bring him down now, before he has a campaign that picks up a full head of steam.

Finally a guy who gets it

It's looking worse and worse for Clinton and if they don't have her, I just don't see any candidate that anyone has ever heard of or isn't as "extreme" as any of the claims from the left about those on the right, in general (Warren? Dean?)

[SharkAA]

So what's the bet here? Will Hill has Hillary Clinton @ +125 and Democrat to win @ -125. Explain to a European, who doesn't know much about U.S. politics, like myself, who has the edge right now. Democrats or Republicans?

[raydog]

you're certifiable.

conservatives are dumber than liberals, fact. for anecdotal evidence i present to the audience, SEAWEED!!!

Let's take a look at who has the higher % of unemployed and on welfare or other gov't handouts ... Wait, I don't want to ruin the fantasy world you are living in...

[brooks85]

Finally a guy who gets it

It's looking worse and worse for Clinton and if they don't have her, I just don't see any candidate that anyone has ever heard of or isn't as "extreme" as any of the claims from the left about those on the right, in general (Warren? Dean?)

eye of the beholder


Most of the sheep will still vote her when they are told her illegal email activity, illegal gifts from foreign nations and complete mishandling of Bengazhi are no big deal. Any negative you can think of is not enough to stop her from winning.

The only way she doesn't win is if O'malley gets the nod and he hates freedom just as much as her.

[Optional]

no but you're missing the point, you know that saying about the devil you know?

Can you imagine you the utter shit storm you'd been in if California and New York decided your president every cycle? Personally, I get a chuckle thinking about it. Laws like 10 rounds maximum magazines? Thank god those people are leashed by the electoral college. lol did you see they just passed a law for bullets to be microstamped by a technology that doesn't even exist?

score one for the criminals again.

lol

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-652651-law-microstamping.html

these people seriously hate freedom. Anyone who thinks Obama isn't a terrorist is a complete moron; anyone who thinks California is full of coherent Americans is a moron.

Obviously so do you, when it suits your agenda.

[brooks85]

Obviously so do you, when it suits your agenda.

absolutely, I adhere to the constitution, bill of rights and would like to get back to that. Crazy!!!! lol my agenda, you're hilarious

[rkelly110]

So what's the bet here? Will Hill has Hillary Clinton @ +125 and Democrat to win @ -125. Explain to a European, who doesn't know much about U.S. politics, like myself, who has the edge right now. Democrats or Republicans?

Bet a Repub to win at plus money. We haven't had back to back Dem presidents for a long time. The odds are in your favor.

[Optional]

absolutely, I adhere to the constitution, bill of rights and would like to get back to that. Crazy!!!! lol my agenda, you're hilarious

I thought it was kind of hilarious too, that you made those as consecutive posts. Was just hard to ignore the hypocrisy. Carry on. ;-)

[brooks85]

I thought it was kind of hilarious too, that you made those as consecutive posts. Was just hard to ignore the hypocrisy. Carry on. ;-)

well, when you can point it out, let me know lol. All you have succeeded in doing so far is looking stupid.

As usual, you're just all talk.


Hypocrisy would be the California dem who wanted to ban guns but was really selling high-powered weapons under the table. That is hypocrisy lol, and it will be again next time they vote for another dem pushing for any kind of gun control.

So, if my stance is an agenda to you then you must sincerely hate freedom and love the trajectory of this country.

Or wait, do you actually support gun control? That would explain A LOT as to why you think I have an agenda.

[Optional]

Oh geez. I was mostly just ribbing you. You say you are happy democratic freedom is stymied in one post then in the very next decry someone for hating freedom.

Have a laugh at yourself for gods sake ;-)

[SharkAA]

Bet a Repub to win at plus money. We haven't had back to back Dem presidents for a long time. The odds are in your favor.

Ok, thank you for your opinion. Another question: how much is 'traditionally Republican/Democrat state' element relevant? I've read about it in 2012, where they said, that Florida&California and other states, are traditionally Democrat oriented and Texas is, for example, traditionally Republican oriented.

[Triple_D_Bet]

I suggest you take some science classes considering that is the basis of evolution. 99.9% of changes in DNA do nothing helpful and in vast majority of cases are a hindrance of some kind. You ever see a frogs with 3 legs or humans with 4 arms? Think those DNA changes actually helped them...

Change needs to be slow.

Well versed in evolution thanks, and it works best when it allows an organism to adapt to a rapidly changed environment. It might take a while as measured in an organisms lifetime, but not on the time line of a species history. Regardless, you still haven't provided any logical reason why everything needs to change slowly... if a house is on fire, do you recommend extinguishing it one square inch at a time?

[brooks85]

Oh geez. I was mostly just ribbing you. You say you are happy democratic freedom is stymied in one post then in the very next decry someone for hating freedom.

Have a laugh at yourself for gods sake ;-)

there is your logical fallacy, that is your opinion. Electoral college is not stymieing democratic freedom lol, as history shows they have saved you from that very problem.

[brooks85]

Well versed in evolution thanks, and it works best when it allows an organism to adapt to a rapidly changed environment. It might take a while as measured in an organisms lifetime, but not on the time line of a species history. Regardless, you still haven't provided any logical reason why everything needs to change slowly... if a house is on fire, do you recommend extinguishing it one square inch at a time?

really, I guess that is why they just found an organism they hasn't evolved in anyway for 2 billion years. I guess it is just waiting a little longer huh? And your "rapidly changing environment" is still multiple generations almost every time. Again, change comes slowly.



no I recommend you look over this very carefully and see if you can find your nonsensical argument

[Triple_D_Bet]

Bet a Repub to win at plus money. We haven't had back to back Dem presidents for a long time. The odds are in your favor.

Gambler's Fallacy... red hasn't landed twice in a row for a while, gotta bet black!

Finally a guy who gets it

It's looking worse and worse for Clinton and if they don't have her, I just don't see any candidate that anyone has ever heard of or isn't as "extreme" as any of the claims from the left about those on the right, in general (Warren? Dean?)

Overly optimistic if you think any of Hillary's mistakes are costing her support from people who would vote for her in the first place.

Oh geez. I was mostly just ribbing you. You say you are happy democratic freedom is stymied in one post then in the very next decry someone for hating freedom.

Have a laugh at yourself for gods sake ;-)

Spot on opti, lot of folks claim to be all about freedom except when it produces results they don't agree with. Ignoring the contradiction seems to be a well-practiced tradition here in the states

[Triple_D_Bet]

really, I guess that is why they just fowhatund an organism they hasn't evolved in anyway for 2 billion years. I guess it is just waiting a little longer huh? And your "rapidly changing environment" is still multiple generations almost every time. Again, change comes slowly.



no I recommend you look over this very carefully and see if you can find your nonsensical argument

So an organism hasn't needed to evolve, therefore evolution has to be slow despite the times when it wasn't?

Yes it's multiple generations, kinda by definition lol... that's what I said, it takes a while as measured by an organisms lifetime.

I don't see a fallacy that fits you; you're pretty much just ignoring the repeated requests to explain logically why change has to be slow, instead trying to impress upon us your tenuous grasp on evolution and completely forgetting to mention why it's relevant.

[Auto Donk]

CERTAINLY NOT this guy:



as for why???? fuk, just look at him!!!!

do you want a hooded freak with his finger on the button?????

do you want the leader of the free world to make promises and then back out of them and then beg people to let him change his mind again???? (for eg., president seaweed would promise to take out Isis, then let Isis run over us, then beg shari to let him back in the oval office)

[brooks85]

So an organism hasn't needed to evolve, therefore evolution has to be slow despite the times when it wasn't?

Yes it's multiple generations, kinda by definition lol... that's what I said, it takes a while as measured by an organisms lifetime.

I don't see a fallacy that fits you; you're pretty much just ignoring the repeated requests to explain logically why change has to be slow, instead trying to impress upon us your tenuous grasp on evolution and completely forgetting to mention why it's relevant.

and when was that?

we can keep going in circles here all day while you pretend you know what you're talking about.

"Yes it's multiple generations, kinda by definition lol... that's what I said, it takes a while as measured by an organisms lifetime."

yep, which is exactly why I brought up evolution as the prime example of why change needs to happen slowly. Glad you finally agree, clearly.

I gave you plenty of legislative reasons of why change needs to happen slowly too. Want another? Net neutrality.


and I know you don't see the fallacy that fits me because there isn't one. Your burning house is a prime example of one of them on that chart though which is why I told you to see if you could find it.

[rkelly110]

Ok, thank you for your opinion. Another question: how much is 'traditionally Republican/Democrat state' element relevant? I've read about it in 2012, where they said, that Florida&California and other states, are traditionally Democrat oriented and Texas is, for example, traditionally Republican oriented.

Not really relevant. Talking heads and writers like to break down states into red (repubs) and blue (dem). They will
go even further and break red and blue into counties.

Can't go by polls either. Last election with Romney running, polls had Romney winning by double digits, but he lost
by almost that amount.

Before this last election cycle (mid terms), the Repubs "rigged" the voting system to keep minorities away from the
booths. Enacted voter ID laws. (thought voters were voting more than once) Rearranged their voting districts in their
favor. (get more Repubs to vote for them) Moved voting areas out of the reach of minorities. (beyond walking and
bus routes) Limited absentee ballots. Changed multiple voting days. (minorities liked to vote after church)

Seems to have worked last election. We will see if that works in '16.

[sourtwist]

Not really relevant. Talking heads and writers like to break down states into red (repubs) and blue (dem). They will
go even further and break red and blue into counties.

Can't go by polls either. Last election with Romney running, polls had Romney winning by double digits, but he lost
by almost that amount.

Before this last election cycle (mid terms), the Repubs "rigged" the voting system to keep minorities away from the
booths. Enacted voter ID laws. (thought voters were voting more than once) Rearranged their voting districts in their
favor. (get more Repubs to vote for them) Moved voting areas out of the reach of minorities. (beyond walking and
bus routes) Limited absentee ballots. Changed multiple voting days. (minorities liked to vote after church)

Seems to have worked last election. We will see if that works in '16.

we pray it will, thanks

[brooks85]

baa baa

you and scumbag discussing politics

[scumbag]

Scott Walker is going to do well. Media is trying to do everything they can to bring him down now, before he has a campaign that picks up a full head of steam.

ya, among people who will vote for those creeps anyway. if you think this is the guy to win moderates/independents, you're penetrating nuts.

walker is an unabashed koch shill. he has no ideas other than tax cuts, deregulation, and crushing unions (aka, everything thats ruined our once great country since reagan).

if you think the next POTUS is going to be some idiot who 'thought' he was having a conversation with one of the koch's and was such a penetrating idiot he stayed on the call for over 10 minutes, i don't know what the penetrate to tell ya.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Can't go by polls either. Last election with Romney running, polls had Romney winning by double digits, but he lost
by almost that amount.

Crazy thing about polls, making seemingly innocuous changes to how they're conducted can skew results quite a bit. You would have been hard pressed to find an unbiased one that showed Romney with much of a chance for months leading up to election. Best indicator of that was the betting lines; don't have exact numbers on hand, but I don't remember Romney being anything but a huge dog after his nomination. In something like this, I think it's safe to weight the opinions of books putting their money on the line over any particular likely-to-be-biased poll.

we pray it will, thanks

But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbour?" Jesus answered, "All men, except those who disagree with you"

-Luke 10:29-30, New American Bible (NeoCon edition)

[brooks85]

ya, among people who will vote for those creeps anyway. if you think this is the guy to win moderates/independents, you're penetrating nuts.

walker is an unabashed koch shill. he has no ideas other than tax cuts, deregulation, and crushing unions (aka, everything thats ruined our once great country since reagan).

if you think the next POTUS is going to be some idiot who 'thought' he was having a conversation with one of the koch's and was such a penetrating idiot he stayed on the call for over 10 minutes, i don't know what the penetrate to tell ya.

rkelly loves when this guy posts, only person I know who cherishes being stupid more.

[Triple_D_Bet]

and when was that?

we can keep going in circles here all day while you pretend you know what you're talking about.

"Yes it's multiple generations, kinda by definition lol... that's what I said, it takes a while as measured by an organisms lifetime."

yep, which is exactly why I brought up evolution as the prime example of why change needs to happen slowly. Glad you finally agree, clearly.

I gave you plenty of legislative reasons of why change needs to happen slowly too. Want another? Net neutrality.


and I know you don't see the fallacy that fits me because there isn't one. Your burning house is a prime example of one of them on that chart though which is why I told you to see if you could find it.

Evolution doesn't happen at one universal pace, and it varies considerably, as even a basic understanding of it should tell you. Even so, that still doesn't explain why you think all changes must be slow...is it too much to ask for you to give a logical reason for your statement, instead of trying to argue the core tenets of evolution? Simply listing legislation doesn't cut it either, particularly not when all of it is bad to begin with and remains bad whether enacted slow or fast.

The burning house might seem a bit absurd, but no less than your sweeping generalization that all change needs to happen slowly, which doesn't hold up to even the simplest scrutiny. Again, the only reason there's no fallacy there that fits you is because "not listening" isn't so much a fallacy as just a dumb thing to do when talking with someone

[brooks85]

Evolution doesn't happen at one universal pace, and it varies considerably, as even a basic understanding of it should tell you. Even so, that still doesn't explain why you think all changes must be slow...is it too much to ask for you to give a logical reason for your statement, instead of trying to argue the core tenets of evolution? Simply listing legislation doesn't cut it either, particularly not when all of it is bad to begin with and remains bad whether enacted slow or fast.

The burning house might seem a bit absurd, but no less than your sweeping generalization that all change needs to happen slowly, which doesn't hold up to even the simplest scrutiny. Again, the only reason there's no fallacy there that fits you is because "not listening" isn't so much a fallacy as just a dumb thing to do when talking with someone

lol you're hilarious, you said exactly what I wanted you to say verbatim, agreed 100% with my point, yet you're still going haha

As you proved for me, evolution occurs at a slow pace. You know the most popular example of evolution surely, the Galapagos Islands, you think the birds just woke up one morning and were isolated or did the island slowly drift apart?

And, on top of that, there is also all the legislative examples I gave you like I already mentioned yet you're still bringing up evolution lol

Since I've given you a plethora of examples, still waiting on the example of how rapid legislative change has done what it was sold to do.

Cobra Effect.

[Triple_D_Bet]

lol you're hilarious, you said exactly what I wanted you to say verbatim, agreed 100% with my point, yet you're still going haha

As you proved for me, evolution occurs at a slow pace. You know the most popular example of evolution surely, the Galapagos Islands, you think the birds just woke up one morning and were isolated or did the island slowly drift apart?

And, on top of that, there is also all the legislative examples I gave you like I already mentioned yet you're still bringing up evolution lol

Since I've given you a plethora of examples, still waiting on the example of how rapid legislative change has done what it was sold to do.

Cobra Effect.

OK, we'll just have to accept that you have no concept of what "slow" or "fast" means with regards to evolution...consider it done

Neat lil strawman you have going here though; shame I never tried claiming "rapid legislative change has done what it was sold to do". I claimed that this is a good idea and asked you why you disagree; you don't seem to be able to argue against the merits, only via bad anecdotes about how some other terrible bills were passed quickly and became quickly implemented bad laws.

Yes, unintended consequences exist; going slower doesn't change that. How would you even implement the popular voting compact slowly? Your argument just seems to be falling apart on so many levels. If you care to answer any of the questions I asked about the position you are trying to defend (instead of making up positions you're claiming I believe), please respond accordingly; otherwise I think we're done here, and you're welcome to go back to pretending that people responding rationally is a result of your masterful manipulation instead of the fact they tend to respond rationally.

[rkelly110]

Crazy thing about polls, making seemingly innocuous changes to how they're conducted can skew results quite a bit. You would have been hard pressed to find an unbiased one that showed Romney with much of a chance for months leading up to election. Best indicator of that was the betting lines; don't have exact numbers on hand, but I don't remember Romney being anything but a huge dog after his nomination. In something like this, I think it's safe to weight the opinions of books putting their money on the line over any particular likely-to-be-biased poll.



But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbour?" Jesus answered, "All men, except those who disagree with you"

-Luke 10:29-30, New American Bible (NeoCon edition)

Good observation. I think Romney's odds were +210, 220? I know I did a hedge bet that's all I remember.