I think tho that some people have been conditioned, brain washed, prescribed, whatever to instead put the best interest of corporations before their own.
It's like in a hot desert where people of dying of thirst, when offered if they would like a drink aid water they say absolutely not. And instead they give yet another glass of water to the bloated corporations and then position themselves at the pants leg of the of the corporation that they insist on pumping full of water and wait with their mouths open for something to "trickle down".
I think that this is a battle of those that believe in technology, innovation and efficiency to be less dependent on workers and those that are terrified of competition because they lack the ability to keep up with businesses that are more cutting edge and progressive in nature.
This truly is a battle of blockbuster vs red box. And that the red box people would welcome a wage increase because it would help their business take over the market while the blockbuster Dinosaurs are trying to hold on the past with the ability to be innovative, utilize technology and run their business more efficiently and profitably.
But this neither here nor there, what is your thoughts on the topic of cashing in on Hillary and the price that you would buy in at?
You make a lot of good points .
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
I think tho that some people have been conditioned, brain washed, prescribed, whatever to instead put the best interest of corporations before their own.
It's like in a hot desert where people of dying of thirst, when offered if they would like a drink aid water they say absolutely not. And instead they give yet another glass of water to the bloated corporations and then position themselves at the pants leg of the of the corporation that they insist on pumping full of water and wait with their mouths open for something to "trickle down".
I think that this is a battle of those that believe in technology, innovation and efficiency to be less dependent on workers and those that are terrified of competition because they lack the ability to keep up with businesses that are more cutting edge and progressive in nature.
This truly is a battle of blockbuster vs red box. And that the red box people would welcome a wage increase because it would help their business take over the market while the blockbuster Dinosaurs are trying to hold on the past with the ability to be innovative, utilize technology and run their business more efficiently and profitably.
But this neither here nor there, what is your thoughts on the topic of cashing in on Hillary and the price that you would buy in at?
Hopefully trump's domination of the GOP along with a continued all out smear campaign because he has nothing to stand on other than talk, will result in the Hillary odds dropping below -200. That's the buying point in my mind at this point similar to Obama last time
0
Hopefully trump's domination of the GOP along with a continued all out smear campaign because he has nothing to stand on other than talk, will result in the Hillary odds dropping below -200. That's the buying point in my mind at this point similar to Obama last time
Is this it? What happened to covers.... I have two bet's on the Republican VP - Marco Rubio +1200 and Newt Gingrich +3000. Marco Rubio because as we all know Florida is a huge swing state and he is going to need the Hispanic vote and Newt Gingrich because Trump estimates he needs 1 billion in funding. Most of the Republican Party's wealthiest contributor's (Koch brother's and other's) are focusing on the smaller election's (senate and house nominations) and are not going to be contributing $$$ to the presidency. Rumor has it Sheldon Adelson would be willing to give north of $100 million to the Trump campaign -- in 2012 Adelson was a major benefactor of Newt. Newt would be adding some legitimacy + much needed $$$'s.
Good luck Vanzack! I have Hillary at -150 earlier this year.
0
Is this it? What happened to covers.... I have two bet's on the Republican VP - Marco Rubio +1200 and Newt Gingrich +3000. Marco Rubio because as we all know Florida is a huge swing state and he is going to need the Hispanic vote and Newt Gingrich because Trump estimates he needs 1 billion in funding. Most of the Republican Party's wealthiest contributor's (Koch brother's and other's) are focusing on the smaller election's (senate and house nominations) and are not going to be contributing $$$ to the presidency. Rumor has it Sheldon Adelson would be willing to give north of $100 million to the Trump campaign -- in 2012 Adelson was a major benefactor of Newt. Newt would be adding some legitimacy + much needed $$$'s.
Good luck Vanzack! I have Hillary at -150 earlier this year.
Is this it? What happened to covers.... I have two bet's on the Republican VP - Marco Rubio +1200 and Newt Gingrich +3000. Marco Rubio because as we all know Florida is a huge swing state and he is going to need the Hispanic vote and Newt Gingrich because Trump estimates he needs 1 billion in funding. Most of the Republican Party's wealthiest contributor's (Koch brother's and other's) are focusing on the smaller election's (senate and house nominations) and are not going to be contributing $$$ to the presidency. Rumor has it Sheldon Adelson would be willing to give north of $100 million to the Trump campaign -- in 2012 Adelson was a major benefactor of Newt. Newt would be adding some legitimacy + much needed $$$'s.
Good luck Vanzack! I have Hillary at -150 earlier this year.
Rubio is effectively out (very high unpopularity ratings in FL) but you got a good price on Newt who is absolutely in the mix.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Caper03:
Is this it? What happened to covers.... I have two bet's on the Republican VP - Marco Rubio +1200 and Newt Gingrich +3000. Marco Rubio because as we all know Florida is a huge swing state and he is going to need the Hispanic vote and Newt Gingrich because Trump estimates he needs 1 billion in funding. Most of the Republican Party's wealthiest contributor's (Koch brother's and other's) are focusing on the smaller election's (senate and house nominations) and are not going to be contributing $$$ to the presidency. Rumor has it Sheldon Adelson would be willing to give north of $100 million to the Trump campaign -- in 2012 Adelson was a major benefactor of Newt. Newt would be adding some legitimacy + much needed $$$'s.
Good luck Vanzack! I have Hillary at -150 earlier this year.
Rubio is effectively out (very high unpopularity ratings in FL) but you got a good price on Newt who is absolutely in the mix.
Trump +175 will win. It will be the grisly prospect of Hillary getting THAT close to the WH, the distrust of Her by Bernie supporters, the ability to coalesce Republican voters who loyally vote their own party. SKILL, Not luck.
170 days to go.
0
Leicester +5000
Those were the odds to win it all.
SKILL. Not luck.
Trump +175 will win. It will be the grisly prospect of Hillary getting THAT close to the WH, the distrust of Her by Bernie supporters, the ability to coalesce Republican voters who loyally vote their own party. SKILL, Not luck.
Trump +175 will win. It will be the grisly prospect of Hillary getting THAT close to the WH, the distrust of Her by Bernie supporters, the ability to coalesce Republican voters who loyally vote their own party. SKILL, Not luck.
170 days to go.
Please make a list of the SKILLS that qualify Trump to be President.
This should be good
0
Quote Originally Posted by Relax_Dude:
Leicester +5000
Those were the odds to win it all.
SKILL. Not luck.
Trump +175 will win. It will be the grisly prospect of Hillary getting THAT close to the WH, the distrust of Her by Bernie supporters, the ability to coalesce Republican voters who loyally vote their own party. SKILL, Not luck.
170 days to go.
Please make a list of the SKILLS that qualify Trump to be President.
Hillary -260, trump +220 today. Would like Hillary price to drop before buying in but it's like stocks and trying to time the sell at the peak and buy at the low.
0
Hillary -260, trump +220 today. Would like Hillary price to drop before buying in but it's like stocks and trying to time the sell at the peak and buy at the low.
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election.
I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.
Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions.
I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
0
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election.
I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.
Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions.
I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election.
I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.
Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions.
I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
The Nader voters in 2000 changed the course of this country. Worse, Nader never should have entered the election.
0
Quote Originally Posted by sicknesscity:
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election.
I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.
Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions.
I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
The Nader voters in 2000 changed the course of this country. Worse, Nader never should have entered the election.
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election. I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency. In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions. I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
The Nader voters in 2000 changed the course of this country. Worse, Nader never should have entered the election.
Yeah who put up Nader? That sucked. Nader as well as Bush, pushed us further into rampant undefinable globalism, further escalation of military adventurism and regime changing, 2008 market and housing collapse. I guess Bush has his fans. Jewish leaders loved him.
0
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Quote Originally Posted by sicknesscity:
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election. I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency. In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions. I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
The Nader voters in 2000 changed the course of this country. Worse, Nader never should have entered the election.
Yeah who put up Nader? That sucked. Nader as well as Bush, pushed us further into rampant undefinable globalism, further escalation of military adventurism and regime changing, 2008 market and housing collapse. I guess Bush has his fans. Jewish leaders loved him.
Hillary -260, trump +220 today. Would like Hillary price to drop before buying in but it's like stocks and trying to time the sell at the peak and buy at the low.
One offshore has dropped that Hillary from -235 odds few days ago to -210 as of now, perhaps due to she still tied up with Bernie in their own primaries. But HRC has whopping 98% to win Democratic nomination in CNN/Pivit now. Also whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be favored to win the General Election as well, 73% to be the chances as of now.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
Hillary -260, trump +220 today. Would like Hillary price to drop before buying in but it's like stocks and trying to time the sell at the peak and buy at the low.
One offshore has dropped that Hillary from -235 odds few days ago to -210 as of now, perhaps due to she still tied up with Bernie in their own primaries. But HRC has whopping 98% to win Democratic nomination in CNN/Pivit now. Also whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be favored to win the General Election as well, 73% to be the chances as of now.
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election.
I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.
Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions.
I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
That is why Sanders said earlier in the week (or maybe last week) that Hillary is the lesser of two evils. He knows no matter what happens with him, that Trump cannot be allowed to win
0
Quote Originally Posted by sicknesscity:
I'm going to post something I believe is interesting here because it's pertinent to the race (Libertarian/Sanders' independent run). My hunch is Bernie will concede to Hillary if he loses when they cast the votes at the convention and hammer out terms. So I don't really believe he will end up being a divider like the "experts" think he'll be. The Libertarians, however, appear to be poised to really make an idiotic protest campaign that'll interfere a bit with the general election.
I was out at work a couple of weeks ago and talked to a couple who used to be members of the Democratic Party but they're retired now. They don't want to vote for Hillary and have considered abstaining or voting for Gary Johnson. I mentioned that swing states are important and people need to vote one way or the other, rather than allowing for principles to prevent them for voting. The stakes are too big.
Well, they had a guy over who is still an active Democrat in politics. He suddenly interjected and mentioned the race in New Hampshire back in 2000. I can't quote verbatim but he said in 2000 over 20,000 votes were cast for Nader in New Hampshire. Had fewer than half of those votes cast for Nader ended up being cast for Gore, he'd have won New Hampshire and would have gotten enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
In fact, the wife admitted she voted for Nader in 2000 and he pointed out that Florida wouldn't have been relevant. When people think they're making a difference by voicing their opinion in that manner, all they really end up doing is affecting the outcome of the election. Bush Jr. was a moron and never should have been president. I believe he loved America but being president requires the temperament and the intellect necessary to understand the impact of long-term decisions.
I hope the people dumb enough to vote Libertarian in the general election consider what I've said before they go out and vote this time around.
That is why Sanders said earlier in the week (or maybe last week) that Hillary is the lesser of two evils. He knows no matter what happens with him, that Trump cannot be allowed to win
One offshore has dropped that Hillary from -235 odds few days ago to -210 as of now, perhaps due to she still tied up with Bernie in their own primaries. But HRC has whopping 98% to win Democratic nomination in CNN/Pivit now. Also whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be favored to win the General Election as well, 73% to be the chances as of now.
Hopefully this pushes the price down for Hillary and allow me a decent buy-in point. The combo of sanders popularity and the GOP being in complete shambles during this period of time should help
0
Quote Originally Posted by Europa:
One offshore has dropped that Hillary from -235 odds few days ago to -210 as of now, perhaps due to she still tied up with Bernie in their own primaries. But HRC has whopping 98% to win Democratic nomination in CNN/Pivit now. Also whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be favored to win the General Election as well, 73% to be the chances as of now.
Hopefully this pushes the price down for Hillary and allow me a decent buy-in point. The combo of sanders popularity and the GOP being in complete shambles during this period of time should help
The supporters of Sanders have no attraction to Hillary. Trump will get about 40% of the Sander's voters. That is a little on the high side. Clinton in trouble and sinking faster than the Titanic.
0
The supporters of Sanders have no attraction to Hillary. Trump will get about 40% of the Sander's voters. That is a little on the high side. Clinton in trouble and sinking faster than the Titanic.
The supporters of Sanders have no attraction to Hillary. Trump will get about 40% of the Sander's voters. That is a little on the high side. Clinton in trouble and sinking faster than the Titanic.
Reality is going to hit you all so hard......
0
Quote Originally Posted by sundance:
The supporters of Sanders have no attraction to Hillary. Trump will get about 40% of the Sander's voters. That is a little on the high side. Clinton in trouble and sinking faster than the Titanic.
The Left owns the voting machines. They announced Ohio going to Obama 5 seconds after the polls were closed. I for one do not trust the machines. Nightmare for the Pubs.
0
The Left owns the voting machines. They announced Ohio going to Obama 5 seconds after the polls were closed. I for one do not trust the machines. Nightmare for the Pubs.
I think tho that some people have been conditioned, brain washed, prescribed, whatever to instead put the best interest of corporations before their own.
It's like in a hot desert where people of dying of thirst, when offered if they would like a drink aid water they say absolutely not. And instead they give yet another glass of water to the bloated corporations and then position themselves at the pants leg of the of the corporation that they insist on pumping full of water and wait with their mouths open for something to "trickle down".
I think that this is a battle of those that believe in technology, innovation and efficiency to be less dependent on workers and those that are terrified of competition because they lack the ability to keep up with businesses that are more cutting edge and progressive in nature.
This truly is a battle of blockbuster vs red box. And that the red box people would welcome a wage increase because it would help their business take over the market while the blockbuster Dinosaurs are trying to hold on the past with the ability to be innovative, utilize technology and run their business more efficiently and profitably.
But this neither here nor there, what is your thoughts on the topic of cashing in on Hillary and the price that you would buy in at?
Good post!!!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
I think tho that some people have been conditioned, brain washed, prescribed, whatever to instead put the best interest of corporations before their own.
It's like in a hot desert where people of dying of thirst, when offered if they would like a drink aid water they say absolutely not. And instead they give yet another glass of water to the bloated corporations and then position themselves at the pants leg of the of the corporation that they insist on pumping full of water and wait with their mouths open for something to "trickle down".
I think that this is a battle of those that believe in technology, innovation and efficiency to be less dependent on workers and those that are terrified of competition because they lack the ability to keep up with businesses that are more cutting edge and progressive in nature.
This truly is a battle of blockbuster vs red box. And that the red box people would welcome a wage increase because it would help their business take over the market while the blockbuster Dinosaurs are trying to hold on the past with the ability to be innovative, utilize technology and run their business more efficiently and profitably.
But this neither here nor there, what is your thoughts on the topic of cashing in on Hillary and the price that you would buy in at?
. 
Hot Forum Topics
