Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Skilled handicappers understand probability, and especially the meaning of a "one-off" ... let alone how much weighting one would give to a "one-off" in the stats for future capping.
But then of course, there are those other people...
your right fubah2 skilled handicappers understand oneoffs . that dude clearly doesnt . why even bother with this guy
He doesn't understand, that's for sure, and he keeps proving it right here week after week.
Well except that week recently he was bannished to jail.
Some people just like to live in a bubble, Kelly. Don't ask me why.
Now I see the "parolee" is touting one of his own conspiracy theories about polls....apparently he seems to feel that when pollsters who only commission polls ONCE every month, (or even once per week) -- don't have a brand new poll available during the time frame in between on a specific day that HE demands, that means polls are withholding something and deliberately being evasive. LOL
But remember: that's from the same guy who DOES NOT understand what a "one-off" is...
6
Quote Originally Posted by KellyM_1964:
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2: Skilled handicappers understand probability, and especially the meaning of a "one-off" ... let alone how much weighting one would give to a "one-off" in the stats for future capping.
But then of course, there are those other people...
your right fubah2 skilled handicappers understand oneoffs . that dude clearly doesnt . why even bother with this guy
He doesn't understand, that's for sure, and he keeps proving it right here week after week.
Well except that week recently he was bannished to jail.
Some people just like to live in a bubble, Kelly. Don't ask me why.
Now I see the "parolee" is touting one of his own conspiracy theories about polls....apparently he seems to feel that when pollsters who only commission polls ONCE every month, (or even once per week) -- don't have a brand new poll available during the time frame in between on a specific day that HE demands, that means polls are withholding something and deliberately being evasive. LOL
But remember: that's from the same guy who DOES NOT understand what a "one-off" is...
"Democracy Institute rated as FAKE by 538. Not a C or D rating but considered FAKE" Does 538 put out a rating on 538 ? On election day of the 2016 presidential election Nat Silvers 538 had Hillary Clinton's chances to win at 65%..that's on the morning of the election...So, if anything is fake it's 538's Political statistical analysis models....Nat needs to stick to MLB something he's has had good success at doing.. Clearly the political arena is not his forte..
538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings.
If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
8
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
"Democracy Institute rated as FAKE by 538. Not a C or D rating but considered FAKE" Does 538 put out a rating on 538 ? On election day of the 2016 presidential election Nat Silvers 538 had Hillary Clinton's chances to win at 65%..that's on the morning of the election...So, if anything is fake it's 538's Political statistical analysis models....Nat needs to stick to MLB something he's has had good success at doing.. Clearly the political arena is not his forte..
538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings.
If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: "Democracy Institute rated as FAKE by 538. Not a C or D rating but considered FAKE" Does 538 put out a rating on 538 ? On election day of the 2016 presidential election Nat Silvers 538 had Hillary Clinton's chances to win at 65%..that's on the morning of the election...So, if anything is fake it's 538's Political statistical analysis models....Nat needs to stick to MLB something he's has had good success at doing.. Clearly the political arena is not his forte.. 538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
"I'm the MOST HONEST HUMAN BEING that God has EVER created!!" - Donald Trump
0
Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect:
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: "Democracy Institute rated as FAKE by 538. Not a C or D rating but considered FAKE" Does 538 put out a rating on 538 ? On election day of the 2016 presidential election Nat Silvers 538 had Hillary Clinton's chances to win at 65%..that's on the morning of the election...So, if anything is fake it's 538's Political statistical analysis models....Nat needs to stick to MLB something he's has had good success at doing.. Clearly the political arena is not his forte.. 538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
On election day of the 2016 presidential election Nat Silvers 538 had Hillary Clinton's chances to win at 65%..that's on the morning of the election...So, if anything is fake it's 538's Political statistical analysis models....Nat needs to stick to MLB something he's has had good success at doing.. Clearly the political arena is not his forte..
e ov
from what i read above in slims quote he believes that if anyone makes a predicition for who wins or losses and that one time it turned out wrong then he is a fake .
that would pretty much make 330 million Americans fake by his rationale
"I'm the MOST HONEST HUMAN BEING that God has EVER created!!" - Donald Trump
4
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
On election day of the 2016 presidential election Nat Silvers 538 had Hillary Clinton's chances to win at 65%..that's on the morning of the election...So, if anything is fake it's 538's Political statistical analysis models....Nat needs to stick to MLB something he's has had good success at doing.. Clearly the political arena is not his forte..
e ov
from what i read above in slims quote he believes that if anyone makes a predicition for who wins or losses and that one time it turned out wrong then he is a fake .
that would pretty much make 330 million Americans fake by his rationale
One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
EXACTLY! Well said sir!
538 is a "poll monitoring site" ....so is 270towin.com and RealClearPolitics - which I quote often.
A poll of polls.
In any case, I thought Hillary had a 90% chance of getting the most votes and by a significant margin at that! Only 4 of 55 elections (7%) has the LOSER been granted the presidency via electoral college, at that point. I bet $2k on Hillary. I was right about her chances to get the most votes and 92.7% of the time that translates into a win -- but that time I lost.
On this forum I am sure there are innumerable stories of "one-offs" that either won FOR a guy or caused a loss.
Sh!t happens. Hillary lost despite being a solid favorite. Ya, so ??? It was a one-off! One-offs/flukes/upsets *DO* happen! Just ask Baltimore Raven supporters...
I could recount the story of a "one-off" of a lifetime that happened to me in 1980 that would blow your mind!!
8
Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect:
One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
EXACTLY! Well said sir!
538 is a "poll monitoring site" ....so is 270towin.com and RealClearPolitics - which I quote often.
A poll of polls.
In any case, I thought Hillary had a 90% chance of getting the most votes and by a significant margin at that! Only 4 of 55 elections (7%) has the LOSER been granted the presidency via electoral college, at that point. I bet $2k on Hillary. I was right about her chances to get the most votes and 92.7% of the time that translates into a win -- but that time I lost.
On this forum I am sure there are innumerable stories of "one-offs" that either won FOR a guy or caused a loss.
Sh!t happens. Hillary lost despite being a solid favorite. Ya, so ??? It was a one-off! One-offs/flukes/upsets *DO* happen! Just ask Baltimore Raven supporters...
I could recount the story of a "one-off" of a lifetime that happened to me in 1980 that would blow your mind!!
538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
I know 538 doesn't rate itself that was tongue in cheek...it was meant to say 538 are the ones who need to rate themselves instead of rating others and calling them fake..When they are the ones who put out that bogus 2016 election percentage for Hillary.. They are not pollsters, I know that they take the work of other pollsters and modify it ..removing parts of the poll that don't fit their model and make adjustments for simulation e.g. likely voters vs.registered voters and add to it a calculated a trend line..and more..
538's matrix is based on the political leanings ..the political leanings of the polls they are using for their simulator...which I hear is being run not 20k times like in 2016 ,but 40,000 times..they can run their simulators 100,000 times nevertheless it will still translate into the national Election Day error like the last time.
You sound like someone who is not an American with your "USA is one really, really stupid society." comment. What is the smart country that you inhabit..
0
Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect:
538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society.
I know 538 doesn't rate itself that was tongue in cheek...it was meant to say 538 are the ones who need to rate themselves instead of rating others and calling them fake..When they are the ones who put out that bogus 2016 election percentage for Hillary.. They are not pollsters, I know that they take the work of other pollsters and modify it ..removing parts of the poll that don't fit their model and make adjustments for simulation e.g. likely voters vs.registered voters and add to it a calculated a trend line..and more..
538's matrix is based on the political leanings ..the political leanings of the polls they are using for their simulator...which I hear is being run not 20k times like in 2016 ,but 40,000 times..they can run their simulators 100,000 times nevertheless it will still translate into the national Election Day error like the last time.
You sound like someone who is not an American with your "USA is one really, really stupid society." comment. What is the smart country that you inhabit..
Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect: 538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society. I know 538 doesn't rate itself that was tongue in cheek...it was meant to say 538 are the ones who need to rate themselves instead of rating others and calling them fake..When they are the ones who put out that bogus 2016 election percentage for Hillary.. They are not pollsters, I know that they take the work of other pollsters and modify it ..removing parts of the poll that don't fit their model and make adjustments for simulation e.g. likely voters vs.registered voters and add to it a calculated a trend line..and more.. 538's matrix is based on the political leanings ..the political leanings of the polls they are using for their simulator...which I hear is being run not 20k times like in 2016 ,but 40,000 times..they can run their simulators 100,000 times nevertheless it will still translate into the national Election Day error like the last time.
You sound like someone who is not an American with your "USA is one really, really stupid society." comment. What is the smart country that you inhabit..
BS. A lot of claims and as usual no links to back up specific claims.
Bogus Hillary percentage??? Hell MOST people INCLUDING THE REPUBLICANS thought Hillary was "likely" to win.
Not FOR SURE........ just "likely"
Probabilities.
I thought Hillary would garner significantly more votes (she did!) and that would result in a win -- as it happened 92.7% of all presidential elections. Didn't happen. One of those 7.3% times when it doesn't.
That's a one-off.
Read and learn.
Your lack of understanding is laughable especially on a handicapping forum.
**From the sum of your posts in this forum it is apparent YOU think that because a "one-off" happened 4 years ago there is a an equal or near equal chance of another "one-off" happening again this time...
UN-believable.
8
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect: 538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society. I know 538 doesn't rate itself that was tongue in cheek...it was meant to say 538 are the ones who need to rate themselves instead of rating others and calling them fake..When they are the ones who put out that bogus 2016 election percentage for Hillary.. They are not pollsters, I know that they take the work of other pollsters and modify it ..removing parts of the poll that don't fit their model and make adjustments for simulation e.g. likely voters vs.registered voters and add to it a calculated a trend line..and more.. 538's matrix is based on the political leanings ..the political leanings of the polls they are using for their simulator...which I hear is being run not 20k times like in 2016 ,but 40,000 times..they can run their simulators 100,000 times nevertheless it will still translate into the national Election Day error like the last time.
You sound like someone who is not an American with your "USA is one really, really stupid society." comment. What is the smart country that you inhabit..
BS. A lot of claims and as usual no links to back up specific claims.
Bogus Hillary percentage??? Hell MOST people INCLUDING THE REPUBLICANS thought Hillary was "likely" to win.
Not FOR SURE........ just "likely"
Probabilities.
I thought Hillary would garner significantly more votes (she did!) and that would result in a win -- as it happened 92.7% of all presidential elections. Didn't happen. One of those 7.3% times when it doesn't.
That's a one-off.
Read and learn.
Your lack of understanding is laughable especially on a handicapping forum.
**From the sum of your posts in this forum it is apparent YOU think that because a "one-off" happened 4 years ago there is a an equal or near equal chance of another "one-off" happening again this time...
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect: 538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society. I know 538 doesn't rate itself that was tongue in cheek...it was meant to say 538 are the ones who need to rate themselves instead of rating others and calling them fake..When they are the ones who put out that bogus 2016 election percentage for Hillary.. They are not pollsters, I know that they take the work of other pollsters and modify it ..removing parts of the poll that don't fit their model and make adjustments for simulation e.g. likely voters vs.registered voters and add to it a calculated a trend line..and more.. 538's matrix is based on the political leanings ..the political leanings of the polls they are using for their simulator...which I hear is being run not 20k times like in 2016 ,but 40,000 times..they can run their simulators 100,000 times nevertheless it will still translate into the national Election Day error like the last time. You sound like someone who is not an American with your "USA is one really, really stupid society." comment. What is the smart country that you inhabit..
BS. A lot of claims and as usual no links to back up specific claims. Bogus Hillary percentage??? Hell MOST people INCLUDING THE REPUBLICANS thought Hillary was "likely" to win. Not FOR SURE........ just "likely" Probabilities. I thought Hillary would garner significantly more votes (she did!) and that would result in a win -- as it happened 92.7% of all presidential elections. Didn't happen. One of those 7.3% times when it doesn't. That's a one-off. Read and learn. Your lack of understanding is laughable especially on a handicapping forum.
**From the sum of your posts in this forum it is apparent YOU think that because a "one-off" happened 4 years ago there is a an equal or near equal chance of another "one-off" happening again this time... UN-believable.
"I'm the MOST HONEST HUMAN BEING that God has EVER created!!" - Donald Trump
0
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2:
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect: 538 does not rate 538, how ridiculous. One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society. I know 538 doesn't rate itself that was tongue in cheek...it was meant to say 538 are the ones who need to rate themselves instead of rating others and calling them fake..When they are the ones who put out that bogus 2016 election percentage for Hillary.. They are not pollsters, I know that they take the work of other pollsters and modify it ..removing parts of the poll that don't fit their model and make adjustments for simulation e.g. likely voters vs.registered voters and add to it a calculated a trend line..and more.. 538's matrix is based on the political leanings ..the political leanings of the polls they are using for their simulator...which I hear is being run not 20k times like in 2016 ,but 40,000 times..they can run their simulators 100,000 times nevertheless it will still translate into the national Election Day error like the last time. You sound like someone who is not an American with your "USA is one really, really stupid society." comment. What is the smart country that you inhabit..
BS. A lot of claims and as usual no links to back up specific claims. Bogus Hillary percentage??? Hell MOST people INCLUDING THE REPUBLICANS thought Hillary was "likely" to win. Not FOR SURE........ just "likely" Probabilities. I thought Hillary would garner significantly more votes (she did!) and that would result in a win -- as it happened 92.7% of all presidential elections. Didn't happen. One of those 7.3% times when it doesn't. That's a one-off. Read and learn. Your lack of understanding is laughable especially on a handicapping forum.
**From the sum of your posts in this forum it is apparent YOU think that because a "one-off" happened 4 years ago there is a an equal or near equal chance of another "one-off" happening again this time... UN-believable.
Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect: One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society. EXACTLY! Well said sir! 538 is a "poll monitoring site" ....so is 270towin.com and RealClearPolitics - which I quote often. A poll of polls. In any case, I thought Hillary had a 90% chance of getting the most votes and by a significant margin at that! Only 4 of 55 elections (7%) has the LOSER been granted the presidency via electoral college, at that point.I bet $2k on Hillary. I was right about her chances to get the most votesand 92.7% of the time that translates into a win -- but that time I lost. On this forum I am sure there are innumerable stories of "one-offs" thateither won FOR a guy or caused a loss. Sh!t happens. Hillary lost despite being a solid favorite. Ya, so ???It was a one-off! One-offs/flukes/upsets *DO* happen!Just ask Baltimore Raven supporters... I could recount the story of a "one-off" of a lifetime that happened to me in 1980that would blow your mind!!
forget it u guys . saratoga doesnt understand probability . he just wants to pick fightsto misdirect from his weakness
now that hes out of jail
"I'm the MOST HONEST HUMAN BEING that God has EVER created!!" - Donald Trump
7
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2:
Quote Originally Posted by RCDirect: One of 538's tasks is to rate pollsters for accuracy and determine bias and legitimacy. 538 is not fake. Perhaps you do not understand their mission and objectives. They are not a pollster. The information they put forward is based on the polling organizations they research. They ignore intentional bias, left or right, red or blue. Hilary Clinton's chances to win were based on a matrix and polling averages, not political leanings. If you only acknowledge information that conforms to your bias you bow to ignorance. The right has always been anti-education. An ignorant society keeps the establishment in power. The USA is one really, really stupid society. EXACTLY! Well said sir! 538 is a "poll monitoring site" ....so is 270towin.com and RealClearPolitics - which I quote often. A poll of polls. In any case, I thought Hillary had a 90% chance of getting the most votes and by a significant margin at that! Only 4 of 55 elections (7%) has the LOSER been granted the presidency via electoral college, at that point.I bet $2k on Hillary. I was right about her chances to get the most votesand 92.7% of the time that translates into a win -- but that time I lost. On this forum I am sure there are innumerable stories of "one-offs" thateither won FOR a guy or caused a loss. Sh!t happens. Hillary lost despite being a solid favorite. Ya, so ???It was a one-off! One-offs/flukes/upsets *DO* happen!Just ask Baltimore Raven supporters... I could recount the story of a "one-off" of a lifetime that happened to me in 1980that would blow your mind!!
forget it u guys . saratoga doesnt understand probability . he just wants to pick fightsto misdirect from his weakness
Quote Originally Posted by KellyM_1964: thanks for loaning thm to me . i put them back in the same place where u told me the last time - inside your MAGA purse on top of your bra and panties Tell me again who it is that's looking for a fight .,,,,
Only one correct answer; it's the "person" (him or her) who first wrote this:
" Kelly,were are those pom-poms ? "
6
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Quote Originally Posted by KellyM_1964: thanks for loaning thm to me . i put them back in the same place where u told me the last time - inside your MAGA purse on top of your bra and panties Tell me again who it is that's looking for a fight .,,,,
Only one correct answer; it's the "person" (him or her) who first wrote this:
Joe Biden’s campaign criticized President Donald Trump’s visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Tuesday, calling it a “sad display.”and that it would backfire on Trump...
Joe Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, will visit Kenosha on Thursday after Trump made it safe! ...His visit to Wisconsin comes just days after President Donald Trump toured the destructive aftermath....There are leaders and there are followers...
Jill Biden will be there to answer questions from reporters .
0
Joe Biden’s campaign criticized President Donald Trump’s visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Tuesday, calling it a “sad display.”and that it would backfire on Trump...
Joe Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, will visit Kenosha on Thursday after Trump made it safe! ...His visit to Wisconsin comes just days after President Donald Trump toured the destructive aftermath....There are leaders and there are followers...
Jill Biden will be there to answer questions from reporters .
Gamblers are giving Biden the edge over Trump: 50.7% to 48.3%. But a look at the trend line shows a large decline for Biden and a comeback for Trump from just 30 days ago. On Aug. 1, the odds were 61% for Biden and 36.4% for Trump..
0
Gamblers are giving Biden the edge over Trump: 50.7% to 48.3%. But a look at the trend line shows a large decline for Biden and a comeback for Trump from just 30 days ago. On Aug. 1, the odds were 61% for Biden and 36.4% for Trump..
Ever notice when you try to have a conversation with a Trump Hater that it ends with being called a racist if you disagree with their ideas? And now the Democrats in power tell us America is racist “systemic racism” because they know their policies are not good for America. And most Americans don’t agree with or want their policies.
That's what you get with the Democrats on this web site, yes. However, I know many, many Democrats in real life that are not like the ones here. The Democrats here are especially strange folks.
Gamble for entertainment, invest for wealth!
1
Quote Originally Posted by chadebennett:
Ever notice when you try to have a conversation with a Trump Hater that it ends with being called a racist if you disagree with their ideas? And now the Democrats in power tell us America is racist “systemic racism” because they know their policies are not good for America. And most Americans don’t agree with or want their policies.
That's what you get with the Democrats on this web site, yes. However, I know many, many Democrats in real life that are not like the ones here. The Democrats here are especially strange folks.
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: Kelly,were are those pom-poms ? thanks for loaning thm to me . i put them back in the same place where u told me the last time - inside your MAGA purse on top of your bra and panties
You did well Kelly ...you put them exactly were I told you to put them ...the same place as the last time you were here ..as you leave put them on my bedroom dresser with the other stuff..
0
Quote Originally Posted by KellyM_1964:
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim: Kelly,were are those pom-poms ? thanks for loaning thm to me . i put them back in the same place where u told me the last time - inside your MAGA purse on top of your bra and panties
You did well Kelly ...you put them exactly were I told you to put them ...the same place as the last time you were here ..as you leave put them on my bedroom dresser with the other stuff..
As Portland enters its 98th consecutive night of protests, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that directs his attorney general to identify "anarchist jurisdictions" of cities across the country that also have ongoing protests against police brutality and social injustice. Those areas would potentially get defunded, according to the order.
"Unfortunately, anarchy has recently beset some of our best States and cities," the order read. "For the past few months, several State and local governments have contributed to the violence and destruction in their jurisdictions by failing to enforce the law, disempowering and significantly defunding their police departments, and refusing to accept offers of Federal law enforcement assistance."
Trump's order goes on to say that violence and destruction has become prevalent in cities like Portland, New York City and Seattle.,,,,,where he says violence is not stopped by local officials, but rather encouraged.
During last week's Republican National Convention, Trump made it a major issue that his administration was for "law and order" in the United States.
0
The Law and Order President...
As Portland enters its 98th consecutive night of protests, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that directs his attorney general to identify "anarchist jurisdictions" of cities across the country that also have ongoing protests against police brutality and social injustice. Those areas would potentially get defunded, according to the order.
"Unfortunately, anarchy has recently beset some of our best States and cities," the order read. "For the past few months, several State and local governments have contributed to the violence and destruction in their jurisdictions by failing to enforce the law, disempowering and significantly defunding their police departments, and refusing to accept offers of Federal law enforcement assistance."
Trump's order goes on to say that violence and destruction has become prevalent in cities like Portland, New York City and Seattle.,,,,,where he says violence is not stopped by local officials, but rather encouraged.
During last week's Republican National Convention, Trump made it a major issue that his administration was for "law and order" in the United States.
Add Washington,DC to the list of cities above to be defunded...
The President said:'
Add Washington,DC to the three cities listed above to be de-funded....
The President also said:
"My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones,” Trump says in the memo, which twice mentions New York Mayor Bill de Blasio by name.
0
Add Washington,DC to the list of cities above to be defunded...
The President said:'
Add Washington,DC to the three cities listed above to be de-funded....
The President also said:
"My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones,” Trump says in the memo, which twice mentions New York Mayor Bill de Blasio by name.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
