Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,265,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 101 of 101 FirstFirst ... 519199100101
Results 7,501 to 7,559 of 7559
  1. #7501
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Look at you all.

    I don't like what he's saying I wish I could turn him off I wish he would just go away waa waa.

    Doesn't anyone remember when he first turned up? I didn't like him either. Then I realised he's just aggressive in tone, but actually if you can look past it there is substance. You don't have to agree with him, you just have to filter out the shite and find the substance, and debate it.

    In the recent case, it really was as simple as replacing the word wizard with shrink.

    You guys seem to think that debate is better when it's a circle jerk of people agreeing with each other. It's not, and I'm glad that's not what goes on here. It would be if banana fucked off.
    Stop complaining about what other people post. waa waa.
  2. #7502
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Yeah unfortunately that's all you've got, because you know, deep down, that I'm right. You just don't want to lose face by saying "yeah ong you're right if banana fucked off things would get boring" or "you know what ong thanks for making me realise we're drifitng from the debate and instead arguing about utter bollocks".

    I'm trying to help matters, to make people realise this constant dick waving is getting tiresome, but you just see it as me buddying up to banana. Sadly that's the result of identity policits indoctrination and brainwashing... you're either with us or against us.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #7503
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sadly that's the result of identity policits indoctrination and brainwashing... you're either with us or against us.
    Astute
  4. #7504
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah unfortunately that's all you've got, because you know, deep down, that I'm right. You just don't want to lose face by saying "yeah ong you're right if banana fucked off things would get boring" or "you know what ong thanks for making me realise we're drifitng from the debate and instead arguing about utter bollocks".

    I'm trying to help matters, to make people realise this constant dick waving is getting tiresome, but you just see it as me buddying up to banana. Sadly that's the result of identity policits indoctrination and brainwashing... you're either with us or against us.
    lol you get crazier all the time. Identity politics lol.

    When was the last time me and Wuf agreed on anything? 2013? Yet somehow we don't resort to poo-flinging and getting all toxic and douchey over our 'identity politics'.

    You're happy with poo-flinging as a mode of discourse. Good for you. We're not.

    And now you waste time complaining about the idea that we waste time complaining. Fukcing hell do you realise how dumb that sounds?
  5. #7505
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Fukcing hell do you realise how dumb that sounds?
    This tone is so toxic to the community man. Better be careful or MMM might get pissy
  6. #7506
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This tone is so toxic to the community man. Better be careful or MMM might get pissy
    No it's allowed because Ong says he's fine with being subjected to a toxic douchebag, as we all should be.
  7. #7507
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,442
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @ong: I'm not griping. FYI, spoon can badger me all day and I will respect his ideas.
    Nanners can disrespect me all day and night, and I don't care one bit.
    Do you see that?

    This is about self-respect, yes, but more than that. It's about wanting to be better - wanting to always improve as a man - wanting to know about perspectives I do not know and to learn to see the truth in something I didn't expect.

    It's about not having time for people who don't share that common goal.

    ***
    FWIW, this isn't me being childish. Me being childish would be to simply ban him because I want to.
  8. #7508
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Your argument is that, in PA, something besides Trump being president changed between 2016 and 2017 that resulted in the D swing. That's got nothing to do with heteroscedascity. Even if it were possible for one predictor and one outcome varaible to result in heteroscedascity (it isn't),
    Do there need to be two+ input variables for heteroskedasticity to arise? For example, if the regression is income = age, the variation in income over the range of age doesn't result in heteroskedasticity, yet if the regression is income = age + gender, then the variation in income over the range of age does result in heteroskedasticity?

    My response to your argument is that explanation only works in PA, it can't explain the other five data points.
    That's fine. I'm not trying to opine on the other ones. I shouldn't have quoted them.
  9. #7509
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I'm holding the simplest, one variable explanation as my model.
    In a way I'm using a simple, one variable explanation as my model too (regarding PA, the only one I've opined on).

    That model is that the D ran as an (effective) R (he really did, pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc.), so change in vote from R to D in this instance doesn't tell us much about what would happen in a hypothetical future election when the D runs as an effective D.
  10. #7510
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Doesn't anyone remember when he first turned up? I didn't like him either. Then I realised he's just aggressive in tone, but actually if you can look past it there is substance. You don't have to agree with him, you just have to filter out the shite and find the substance, and debate it.
    There is certainly truth here. However, BananaStand certainly does make some logical mistakes then doubles down when called on them. Of course, we all do that. And sometimes the logical mistakes he is called on aren't, and sometimes they are.
  11. #7511
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    When was the last time me and Wuf agreed on anything? 2013?
    yeah you don't even like big tits.

  12. #7512
    Pulling from Taleb:

    Never argue with someone with the aim of changing his or her mind; focus instead on changing the much less invested minds of the audience.
  13. #7513
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do there need to be two+ input variables for heteroskedasticity to arise? For example, if the regression is income = age, the variation in income over the range of age doesn't result in heteroskedasticity, yet if the regression is income = age + gender, then the variation in income over the range of age does result in heteroskedasticity?
    It's a bit complicated to explain (and a bit early in the morning) and not relevant to the binomial test I did because that's a non-parametric test that doesn't make any assumptions regarding how the variance is distributed. I will try to get back to this later.
  14. #7514
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    In a way I'm using a simple, one variable explanation as my model too (regarding PA, the only one I've opined on).

    That model is that the D ran as an (effective) R (he really did, pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc.), so change in vote from R to D in this instance doesn't tell us much about what would happen in a hypothetical future election when the D runs as an effective D.

    Then our models are explaining different levels of things.
  15. #7515
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    yeah you don't even like big tits.

    haha. I like big tits, but once the tits exceed 50% of the total mass of the woman, I think that's pushing it.
  16. #7516
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Do there need to be two+ input variables for heteroskedasticity to arise?
    Sorry, I was thinking in terms of the analysis I had just done when I said one predictor and one outcome variable can't result in heteroscedascity. What I should have done, to be completely correct, is preface that with 'assuming you treat both variables as dichotomous' as in the case of an 'election being held either in 2016 or 2017', where that predictor variable is dichotomous because it has only one of two values (2016 or 2017), and the outcome variable being dichotomous as in either swing(D) or swing (R).

    However, if you wanted to do a t-test, you would be treating the outcome variable as continuous (% swing in either direction). So you would have to jump through certain hoops to fulfill the assumptions of normality, including possibly transforming the data, and you would as a matter of course use a pooled estimate of the variance which generally speaking should adequately address any issues around heteroscedascity.

    If you can't be arsed to do that and just want to do a quick back-of-envelope calculation, you would just choose a non-parametric test which has less power but also fewer assumptions to worry about, which is why I did the binomial one. My guess is that the more powerful t-test would have returned a likelihood ratio closer to 1000:1 in favour of the model assuming an increase in D support from 2016 to 2017 in those six election districts. This is because of the generally large effect (mean = 17.7%) closely clustered around the mean. The binomial test ignores the size of the individual values and only considers whether they are positive or negative, so the evidence it gives in this case, while still strong, is not overwhelming.

    If you have a lot of experience with numbers, you can also use the interocular trauma test, whereby if the data hits you between the eyes you can glean the existence of an effect without carrying out a formal test. A layperson's version of the interocular trauma test would be to believe that the house next to theirs is closer to them than the moon 365 days a year, without carrying out any formal measurements or doing a statistical test.




    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    For example, if the regression is income = age, the variation in income over the range of age doesn't result in heteroskedasticity, yet if the regression is income = age + gender, then the variation in income over the range of age does result in heteroskedasticity?
    Both income and age in the example you give are variables that can have continuous values. If, e.g., you draw a scatterplot of income and age, you'd expect there to be a tight cluster around people 0-1 yrs old having an income of 0, and as age increases, the spread of incomes around age would increase, so that the overall impression would be of a cone-shaped distribution. That would be an example of heteroscedascity, because age would strongly predict income at age 0-1 but not so well at age 50-51 (or whatever). The Pearson correlation coeffecient of that analysis based on a normal distribution would be problematic, and a sensible statistician would not do a Pearson correlation but would do something where normality is not one of the assumptions, known as a non-parametric test, such as a Spearman's rho correlation. Moreover, things would get more complicated if your data included people over 65 who are retired and generally not having a lot of income.

    If you added in gender as a coefficient, its interaction with the other variables would be another potential source of violation of normality.
  17. #7517
  18. #7518
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...VYu?li=BBnb7Kz

    If you don't think this also happens in America....fuck you
  19. #7519
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...e-threats.html

    I'll offer 2-1 odds to anyone who wants to bet on Trump
  20. #7520
    Are you saying you will offer me 2 of yours to 1 of mine if I bet that Trump will beat Biden 2020 (if they both run)?

    Shit dawg name your price.
  21. #7521
    LOL he actually said this:

    once had a doctor release a statement claiming that if elected, “Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."
    Fucking hilarious.
  22. #7522
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    So this Cambridge Analytica thing... best I can tell, it seems it wasn't the Russians meddling with the American election... it was the British.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #7523
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Are you saying you will offer me 2 of yours to 1 of mine if I bet that Trump will beat Biden 2020 (if they both run)?

    Shit dawg name your price.
    No, I thought it was obvious from the link that I was talking about a hypothetical fistfight between the two.

    Biden would destroy Trump in a bloodbath.

    If we're talking elections, I'm with you. I'd lay 5 to 1 odds on a Trump victory even if his opponent were Christ himself.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-23-2018 at 08:37 AM.
  24. #7524
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So this Cambridge Analytica thing... best I can tell, it seems it wasn't the Russians meddling with the American election... it was the British.
    Best I can tell, no one was meddling with anything. Data mining and targeted advertising don't violate any laws best I can tell.

    In fact, if you REALLY wanna laugh your balls off, go find clips of Maxine Waters talking about how BRILLIANT it was for Obama to use Facebook data so effectively in 2012. Then watch a clip of her from this week where she cries foul over Trump doing the exact same thing.
  25. #7525
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Data mining and targeted advertising don't violate any laws best I can tell.
    There's a lot more to it than this. At first I was like "yeah whatever, not surprised" but this goes much, much deeper.

    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2018/03...-british-coup/
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #7526
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    No, I thought it was obvious from the link that I was talking about a hypothetical fistfight between the two.

    Biden would destroy Trump in a bloodbath.

    If we're talking elections, I'm with you. I'd lay 5 to 1 odds on a Trump victory even if his opponent were Christ himself.
    Trump ain't threatened by somebody whose chief skill is manhandling little girls.
  27. #7527
    Bone spurs.
  28. #7528
    I can't tell if this is biased and manipulative chicanery, or if the NY Times has actually deluded themselves.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...Zwz?li=BBnb7Kz

    They are citing a problem that they created

    The only reason anyone cares about Stormy Daniels is because the NY Times decided that it sells more papers than immigration and tax reform. And now they're going to stand back and point at the phenomenon like it happened naturally??
  29. #7529
    Sounds more like an excuse from someone who knows he's going to get curb-stomped in an election and wants to save himself the embarrassment.
  30. #7530
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Sounds more like an excuse from someone who knows he's going to get curb-stomped in an election and wants to save himself the embarrassment.
    If you're talking about the 2018 midterms, you're wrong

    If you're talking about a 2020 re-election, you're extra wrong
  31. #7531
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If you're talking about the 2018 midterms, you're wrong

    If you're talking about a 2020 re-election, you're extra wrong
    Well you got me there. Airtight reasoning again.
  32. #7532
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well you got me there. Airtight reasoning again.
    Take a look at the poll numbers that you love to jerk off to.

    Specifically, look at polls asking people whether they would vote for a generic republican or a generic democrat in the midterms. Then look at those polls over time, and tell me if Republicans should be worried?

    Do you agree that if Republicans turn out, they win? If not, you're insane.

    I wonder if there are any legislative issues dominating the headlines that might galvanize republican voters....

  33. #7533
    Please, post some links to these sources your referencing. I'd love to see how you get from 42% to landsliding the midterms.
  34. #7534
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Please, post some links to these sources your referencing. I'd love to see how you get from 42% to landsliding the midterms.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote-6185.html

    At New Years, Dems were ahead by 12.9. In less than three months since then, the lead has been cut by more than half to 5.8

    For whom is that good news?

    Furthermore, if you think Democrats making gun control a top plank in their platform isn't going to drive Republican turnout, then I'm guessing you've accidentally ingested some LSD.
  35. #7535
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote-6185.html

    At New Years, Dems were ahead by 12.9. In less than three months since then, the lead has been cut by more than half to 5.8

    For whom is that good news?

    Furthermore, if you think Democrats making gun control a top plank in their platform isn't going to drive Republican turnout, then I'm guessing you've accidentally ingested some LSD.
    Haha, so you're inferring a trend from those values and assuming it's going to continue right through to November. Well sure, Nostradamus, that's what always happens when the apparent trend is going in the direction you want it to.

    Here's some reality for you: you can find a trend in any direction when you measure a variable such as this over time. From July to Dec. '17 the Dem lead went from +7 to +13. How come it's not at +20 now, if the direction of a trend is such a powerful predictor?

    "Trends" you find in data like these mean fuck all. Scoring the last field goal in a game doesn't mean you're more likely to win if you're still behind by a touchdown.
  36. #7536
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Haha, so you're inferring a trend from those values and assuming it's going to continue right through to November.
    I realize that your caveman cognition can't handle much more than "Ooga booga - line go up - happy time", but I assure you I'm putting a little more thought into it than you're alleging.

    I can see that the gap was wide when Republicans failed to reform healthcare, and that it narrowed after legislative victories on tax reform. So I am inferring that the trend is a result of a successfully implemented legislative agenda. I am predicting that success will continue, or at the very least, not reverse into abject failure within the next 7 months. And therefore I am concluding that these poll results should be interpreted as encouraging news by republicans.
  37. #7537
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    I am predicting that success will continue, or at the very least, not reverse into abject failure within the next 7 months. And therefore I am concluding that these poll results should be interpreted as encouraging news by republicans.
    Well first your prediction was based on the gun debate; now you've thought up a few more reasons. So I'm glad your expert analysis is so well thought out.

    Here's another interpretation of the latest trend: Trump finally kept his mouth shut about something (Daniels) and people have been slowly forgetting what an idiot he usually is in public.

    Does your predictive model account for the very high likelihood Trump is going to do something completely idiotic again sometime soon, and likely repeatedly between now and Nov.?
  38. #7538
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well first your prediction was based on the gun debate; now you've thought up a few more reasons. So I'm glad your expert analysis is so well thought out.
    Are you suggesting that there are not multiple issues that affect the outcome of elections? Are you suggesting that I believed elections all hinged on one single issue?

    Here's another interpretation of the latest trend: Trump finally kept his mouth shut about something (Daniels) and people have been slowly forgetting what an idiot he usually is in public.
    Here's another interpretation of that. The left-wing media doesn't want to talk about legislative success so they have instead tried (sadly) to focus the national narrative on a consensual affair that occurred more than a decade ago.

    Does your predictive model account for the very high likelihood Trump is going to do something completely idiotic again sometime soon, and likely repeatedly between now and Nov.?
    When you describe Trump's actions as "completely idiotic", that usually means he's doing something right. And I said that I am predicting this success to continue. So yes, this is accounted for in my model.
  39. #7539
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you suggesting that there are not multiple issues that affect the outcome of elections?
    Where did I suggest that?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you suggesting that I believed elections all hinged on one single issue?
    Again, where did I suggest that? I only responded to what you wrote. I don't try to put thoughts in other people's mouths like someone we all know.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Here's another interpretation of that. The left-wing media doesn't want to talk about legislative success so they have instead tried (sadly) to focus the national narrative on a consensual affair that occurred more than a decade ago.
    Boo hoo.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    When you describe Trump's actions as "completely idiotic", that usually means he's doing something right. And I said that I am predicting this success to continue. So yes, this is accounted for in my model.
    Then why is he not ahead by 20 points? Oh I know 'cause the media is focusing on porn stars instead of his 'success'. Sounds like a Trump argument to me: when he wins it's cause he's brilliant, but when he loses it's someone else's fault.
  40. #7540
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Where did I suggest that?
    You implied quite clearly that my analysis was not well-thought out because it was not committed to one single political issue.

    Then why is he not ahead by 20 points?
    Because he's not running in 2018.

    Oh I know 'cause the media is focusing on porn stars instead of his 'success'. Sounds like a Trump argument to me: when he wins it's cause he's brilliant, but when he loses it's someone else's fault.
    Actually it's because Romney was right. 48% of the country will vote democrat no matter what. If Christ himself came down and anointed Trump as the Messiah, and the next thing Trump did was cure all disease and usher in world peace with a wave of his hand...the best he could hope for is a 52/48 win in 2020.

    Trump falls slightly short of divinity, and the numbers reflect that.
  41. #7541
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You implied quite clearly that my analysis was not well-thought out because it was not committed to one single political issue.
    Exactly, because you only referenced one political issue. Should I infer you'd thought the other ones were relevant by the fact you DIDN'T include them?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Because he's not running in 2018.
    Ok let me put it another way: If he's so successful, why does he have the lowest approval rating ever of a president 1 year in?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Actually it's because Romney was right. 48% of the country will vote democrat no matter what.
    Then maybe he should have stayed a democrat.
  42. #7542
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Should I infer you'd thought the other ones were relevant by the fact you DIDN'T include them?
    Yes

    Ok let me put it another way: If he's so successful, why does he have the lowest approval rating ever of a president 1 year in?
    He's right about where Clinton was in 1996


    Then maybe he should have stayed a democrat.
    The party changed, not him.
  43. #7543
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Yes
    sorry, reductio ad bananum is your style, not mine.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He's right about where Clinton was in 1996
    Then I guess 1992-1996 was a span of one year after Clinton got elected. Good point.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    The party changed, not him.
    Poor baby.
  44. #7544
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    sorry, reductio ad bananum is your style, not mine.
    I'm not sure what you mean here.

    Then I guess 1992-1996 was a span of one year after Clinton got elected. Good point.
    Shit, you got me on a typo. I mean to say Trump is right about where Clinton was in 1994.

    Poor baby.
    wut?? Democrats used to serve the middle class, now they don't. Why does it surprise you that if someone's political leanings embrace policies that serve the middle class, then they may want to change parties?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 03-27-2018 at 03:12 PM.
  45. #7545
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,135
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  46. #7546
    Who's got the Democrat juice these days?
  47. #7547
    If I were the Dems I'd put the most boring old white man I could find against Trump in 2020.

    But I'm sure instead they'll find some LGBT pregnant asian woman and lose.
  48. #7548
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If I were the Dems I'd put the most boring old white man I could find against Trump in 2020.
    They'll run Bernie. And then in like September of 2020, he'll collapse and die. Then a special counselor will be appointed to investigate Trump's role in the natural death of a 104 year old man, along with any possibility of collusion with Tanzanian assassins.
  49. #7549
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    LGBT
    NON INCLUSIVE BIGOT ALERT
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #7550
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If I were the Dems I'd put the most boring old white man I could find against Trump in 2020.

    But I'm sure instead they'll find some LGBT pregnant asian woman and lose.
    I completely agree.

    They certainly will find somebody who fits their key identities and then try to make voting for him/her/xir about the identity.
  51. #7551
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    They'll run Bernie. And then in like September of 2020, he'll collapse and die. Then a special counselor will be appointed to investigate Trump's role in the natural death of a 104 year old man, along with any possibility of collusion with Tanzanian assassins.
    I tend to think that Comrade Sanders was acting on his own and that the DNC doesn't even like him.
  52. #7552
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,604
    Location
    Finding my game
    "The information operatives who worked out of the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg did not stop at posing as American social media users or spreading false information from purported news sources, according to new details. They also created a number of Twitter accounts that posed as sources for Americans' hometown headlines. NPR has reviewed information connected with the investigation and found 48 such accounts. They have names such as @ElPasoTopNews, @MilwaukeeVoice, @CamdenCityNews and @Seattle_Post. "A not-insignificant amount of those had some sort of variation on what appeared to be a homegrown local news site," said Bret Schafer, a social media analyst for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which tracks Russian influence operations and first noticed this trend. Another example: The Internet Research Agency created an account that looks like it is the Chicago Daily News. That newspaper shuttered in 1978. The Internet Research Agency-linked account was created in May 2014, and for years, it just posted local headlines, accumulating some 19,000 followers by July 2016.

    Another twist: These accounts apparently never spread misinformation. In fact, they posted real local news, serving as sleeper accounts building trust and readership for some future, unforeseen effort. "They set them up for a reason. And if at any given moment, they wanted to operationalize this network of what seemed to be local American news handles, they can significantly influence the narrative on a breaking news story," Schafer told NPR. "But now instead of just showing up online and flooding it with news sites, they have these accounts with two years of credible history."

    https://www.npr.org/2018/07/12/62808...=1531464868095
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  53. #7553
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    15
    Location
    earth
    I really think Trump will win again on 2020, the polls, the media and the Dems will underestimate him again.. I don't even like the guy
  54. #7554
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    I only pretend to like him because it trolls the never-Trumpers.

    The truth is I merely dislike him less than Clinton, which is kind of like saying I dislike being punched less than having my balls slowly crushed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #7555
    Quote Originally Posted by Insane_Homer View Post
    I really think Trump will win again on 2020, the polls, the media and the Dems will underestimate him again.. I don't even like the guy
    He's never been popular, and it won't change if he makes it to 2020. If the Dems can put up any half-assed candidate (i.e., not Hillary Mach 2) they will win easily imo.
  56. #7556
    What will be more interesting is how big of a shit storm Trump will cause if/when he gets the boot (I know Ong thinks he will leave gracefully but loltrolllol).
  57. #7557
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If the Dems can put up any half-assed candidate (i.e., not Hillary Mach 2) they will win easily imo.
  58. #7558
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,105
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What will be more interesting is how big of a shit storm Trump will cause if/when he gets the boot (I know Ong thinks he will leave gracefully but loltrolllol).
    No, I said I'm not in the business of judging people for what they might or might not do in a given situation. And I also said I don't give a fuck.

    Having said that, I expect him to accept defeat if he loses an election fair and square. He's a democrat (by the literal meaning of the word), not some tinpot dictator like you seem to wish he was for some crazy reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #7559
    Haha I'll give you 50:1 he goes down in a tantrum that would impress a 2 year old.

    Edit: make that 500:1.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 07-13-2018 at 06:23 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •