Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
What is the functional difference between "being an x supporter" and "supporting, agreeing with, and being a steadfast apologist for x in every instance?"
The Jan. 6 Investigation
- Thread starter Stacyhs
- Start date
- Status
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I don't know what Ladbrokes odds means and without a link I can't interpret those odds.
But all of this is silly until we get closer to Nov. Maybe a few Republicans need to worry about the primary polls. But in general it's too soon.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Bwhahahaha! Oh puhlease. Pull the other one, its got a Mariachi Band attached to it!
You continually repeat the Fat Orange Turd's talking points
You defend him at every instance.
You are critical of those who attack/criticise him
You are an obsequious apologist for him...
...but no, you're totally not a supporter. Give . Me. A .******* . Break!!!
You done beat me to it Stacy!!!
.
.
Thanks for summing up your belief system.
Now we can dismiss the "Partisanship will mean the committee findings will be biased" accusations as just your opinion, not objective fact.
Cain
Straussian
Sure, but is that true for the filibuster? If he lost his seat by being a good party loyalist, he could probably secure guarantees to serve in a future president's cabinet (he should make sure his taxes are in order or his hopes could get Daschled). As for keeping himself electable, Manchin voted to convict Trump for the Ukraine scheme. Cheney and Kinzinger voted against those articles of impeachment.
Maybe prime time television can boost her chances. Probably not. I'd guess the mortgages on her fabulous properties have been paid off and she'll be just fine. She'll have the choice of being a high-profile martyr (with more of the same slobbering press coverage), and then spending more time with her family. I wouldn't be surprised if she's already plotting a return to public life. She can't expect Trumpism to find enduring success. If she fails to sabotage Trump, she can emerge from the rubble prepared.
Cain
Straussian
I agree. Pounding the law/the facts/the table sort of thing. How the parties breakdown can be a good predictor of one's own views. Warp just said he's not a Trump supporter, which, if true, would further undercut the "but partisan" cries.
Those odds really reflect where UK punters are putting their money, it doesn't necessarily reflect the "true" probability of each of those individuals becoming President.
That said, the current US inflation problems IMO make it almost certain that the next US President will be a Republican so perhaps Donald Trump should be odds on
Ladbrokes is a UK-based bookmaker and those odds reflect where the bets have been placed to date.
Odds of 5/2 mean that you get 2.5 times your bet (plus the original stake) returned in the event that you win and they represent a probability of a little under 30%.
These odds don't reflect the considered opinion of a panel of experts, they don't even reflect the opinion of the bookmaker, they merely reflect where the money has been bet to date (and most of those bets will have been made in the UK), which tends towards candidates with high (current) levels of name recognition.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Agree to disagree.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The next few witnesses due to testify in Hearing Day 2 will be very interesting.
1. Former Faux News Political Editor Chris Stirewalt
Will testify that Trump knew he had lost the election, and spread false information anyway.
2. Former Acting Attorney-General Jeffrey Rosen
Will testify about the the pressure Trump put on the DoJ to lie for him, and about how they threatened to resign if it continued.
3. Former Pence Advisor Greg Jacob
Will testify about the extent of the pressure Trump put on his VP to refuse to count electoral votes.
4. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his Deputy Gabriel Sterling
Will testify about the pressure Trump put in state legislators and official to fraudulently alter election results.
Most notable is the fact that these are all lifelong Republicans - so much for claims of partisanship!!
I think I will have to stock up on popcorn and buy a second popcorn maker...
1. Former Faux News Political Editor Chris Stirewalt
Will testify that Trump knew he had lost the election, and spread false information anyway.
2. Former Acting Attorney-General Jeffrey Rosen
Will testify about the the pressure Trump put on the DoJ to lie for him, and about how they threatened to resign if it continued.
3. Former Pence Advisor Greg Jacob
Will testify about the extent of the pressure Trump put on his VP to refuse to count electoral votes.
4. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his Deputy Gabriel Sterling
Will testify about the pressure Trump put in state legislators and official to fraudulently alter election results.
Most notable is the fact that these are all lifelong Republicans - so much for claims of partisanship!!
I think I will have to stock up on popcorn and buy a second popcorn maker...
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
In other words, they are utterly meaningless!
Untrue statements. But, I get it...with so few conservatives prowling about this place, you have to embellish the hunting stories a bit. Pretty much every conservative here (all 3 or 4 of them) is characterized as a cartoonish stereotype.
I find it predictable and laughable to watch.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, I'm just going to right ahead and call BS on your post. The math is simple.... Quack + Waddle = Duck!
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,986
Warp, at the very least, you have consistently supported those who support Trump.
You are, in fact, a Trump Supporter, even if once removed.
It's a very small fig leaf.
You are, in fact, a Trump Supporter, even if once removed.
It's a very small fig leaf.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Whereas I find you predictable and laughable to watch. The way you steadfastly ignore the "what's the problem?" responses to your repeated assertion of partisanship in particular has had me chuckling.
So it's all good.
I am not a Trump supporter. There is nothing more to it.
But I guess it would get boring around here for some, without monsters to fight...even if they are imaginary ones. How boring it must be to sit in a circle and echo the same talking points to each other, otherwise.
When someone repeats a dumb question over and over, it deserves no response.
I didn't loudly proclaim there to be a "problem". I made a brief comment...a snickering observation. But we now have 4 or 5 pages of saltiness from people unable to accept a difference of opinion. And, even within that, there are others who agreed with my initial observation, which was quite innocuous.
Last edited:
There is always meaning where real money is involved. Trump can win again and he with Putin and Xi Peng can poison what is left of civilization
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
No, a claim of partisanship is not innocuous, because it implies bias. It suggests that the hearing will be prejudiced, and its findings can therefore be dismissed out of hand. It's disingenuous to pretend not to understand this.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Friendly FTFY
- Status