Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Trump is even getting spoken of in France.
Lately, Les Guignols de l'Info, our version of Spitting Image, has been advertising an upcoming "great reunion" episode with ads showing the puppets of two antagonistic political figures hugging, such as Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy... And Barack Obama and Donald Trump
◊.
you know... I'm getting increasingly worried about the popularity of Trump... I wouldn't be surprised that, if he does win, the rest of the worlds response of "oh fuck no!" will cause him to go all Imperialist, and start WW3 to sooth his oversized ego
advancing the front into TV TropesSure, and if a large enough asteroid hits the earth we're all doomed. Neither thing is worth worrying about. There's a slim chance that Trump will win the nomination, but the 2016 presidential is something even a more moderate Republican would have an uphill battle to win, Trump would have no chance.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYou know, it kind of makes me sad that he wasn't as big a contender last election - then we might have gotten him as president in Iron Sky instead of Palin.
edited 11th Dec '15 3:15:29 AM by DrunkenNordmann
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyWasn't Gingritch leading the Republican primary at this point in the 2012 cycle? Let's wait for the primaries to actually officially start before we worry about who's leading shall we?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThis has been debated in my other forum. I mean, it's pretty clear that the constitution says "free persons" and not "eligible voters," but then the 14th amendment comes along and decrees "one person, one vote," which is the basis of the plaintiff's argument.
Although the only way the SC could really screw the pooch on it is if they demanded the districts be formed based on registered voters, which would badly favor GOP districts. "eligible" voters only hurts in areas where there are large immigrant non-citizen populations. In fact, strictly defining on eligibility could hurt rural districts as well, as many of them count nonvoting prisoners in with their population.
edited 11th Dec '15 6:07:48 AM by Ogodei
No no no, Trump has not been leading for six months. What he has done is consistently go up the ranks.
As far as I'm concerned, he ain't the leading rep candidate unless / until he overtakes Rubio with the gambling crowd.
/ grasping at straws. I made a promise to self ? months ago to ignore, but wtfffff USA media.
So much for my assumption that I would be feeling torn between Clinton and Sanders. At this point of Trump ridiculousness, you Democrats got to put Clinton in. Sanders vs Trump is too damn risky even with Clinton as VP.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.I think that the gambling crowd is deluding themselves.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You know. If the majority of the gambling crowd were frequently right, the majority of the gambling crowd would be rich by gambling.
The fact they vote for trump is more indicative to probability of him losing. If you wanted to use bets from someone who was more analytical, I'd go for the high rollers that live out of that. Not the rich fuckers that go waste millions there for funsies.
Statistically and historically though, Trump is fucked. If you live outside the U.S, have a fun and a laugh at his expense. If you are from within the U.S...well. Panic is more understandable there.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesGambling is based more on math while polls are based on feelings. Following Telegraph explains in detail why:
Here's tidbits:
This didn’t surprise anyone who had followed the history of political betting markets in the US, which correctly predicted almost every US presidential election between 1868 and 1940. In only one year, 1916, did the candidate favoured in the betting the month before the election, Charles E Hughes, end up losing, and that in a very tight race.
The hypothesis here is that the collective wisdom of many people is greater than the conclusions of a few. Those myriad people feed in the best information and analysis they can because their own financial rewards depend directly upon this. And it really is a case of “follow the money” because those who know the most, and are best able to process the available information, tend to bet the most.
I also use odds checker which aggregates data from many gambling sites.
If you want to argue that the gambling crowd is wrong about Clinton, no further replies from moi.
edited 11th Dec '15 7:19:40 AM by probablyinsane
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.Speaking of Rubio, the back room money seems to be aligning behind him
Griffin, the wealthiest man in Illinois and the head of the investment firm Citadel, told CNBC on Wednesday that he would back Rubio and give "several million dollars" to Rubio's super PAC, which can accept unlimited contributions. Rubio's campaign confirmed the planned support.
...
Chicagoan gave $3.8 million to conservative candidates and outside groups in 2014, the seventh most of any person in the country, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The top Republican giver, Paul Singer of New York, previously pledged to support Rubio as well.
Oh, I am sure they are right about Clinton, but I highly doubt that they are correct that Rubio will be the nominee for the Republicans.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"America's Immigration Challenge
Coming to the United States would benefit millions—but policymakers seldom ask whether their arrival would benefit the United States.
![]()
![]()
Your post seems to deride the gambling crowd. But anyway so long as you're not unaware of it's considerable predictive capability.
I've seen Trump steadily go up the odds ranking for months. Which is why I'm worried more and more. His odds are closing in on Rubio. ![]()
I think he averaged a rank up a month.
AND the no publicity is bad publicity effect - I can't understimate this.
edited 11th Dec '15 7:34:51 AM by probablyinsane
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.Trump supporters feel disenfranchised by the system, so after they adopted Trump as their standard bearer for spewing the simplistic (and stupid) solutions they want to be right and the racist/xenophobic garbage that they have fears of being called out for, he became immune to criticism. These are people who've spent years, if not decades, retreating behind conspiracy theories and alternate world news coverage to make excuses for why their lives suck, so they have no problem believing that anyone who criticizes their man is part of their latest paranoid delusion right up there with the lizard people in charge of the White House and the Illuminati Zionists who control the banks.
So criticism of Trump actually reinforces their belief in him, because they get similarly criticized and they know for sure that they're right, so they just do what the American Right has been doing for the last 20 years in the face of criticism, since the impeachment of Bill Clinton: they double down.
And every time Trump shows signs of slipping in the polls, he deliberately does something outrageous to get the media to criticize him, and the support firms up again.
There isn't going to be a sudden line that Trump crosses where everyone abandons him, it's going to be a matter of it melting away one person at a time until the wave he's riding just becomes a group of die hards that are too few to carry him where he wants to go.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |

Holler for a mod ruling if you want, I have nothing to add.