Auspol November-The race that stopped the creation of a new thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol November-The race that stopped the creation of a new thread

«‹›51 »

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

Synthbuttrange posted:

PM Abbott for christmas

also Gillian Triggs trolling the hell out of the LNP by supporting 18c changes to make it more powerful

Hoo boy you better bet Bill Leak will have something to say about that! For the next six weeks.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 19:02

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

HEY! First post is my spot < :mad:

>

In other shocking news

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/politics-live-november-8/8002782

quote:

Politics Live: Labor to oppose lifetime ban for refugees

Labor caucus will vote against legislation to ban all refugees and asylum seekers in offshore processing from ever coming to Australia. The Opposition has criticised the proposed changes to the Migration Act, but Immigration Minister Peter Dutton says the bill won't be amended.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-08/should-south-australia-be-storing-nuclear-waste-above-ground/8003156

quote:

SA nuclear waste dump plans based on questionable assumptions and lacks public support ANALYSIS By Stephen Long Updated about 3 hours ago

Did you know that South Australia is proposing to store high-level radioactive waste above ground for more than 100 years? Neither did I, until very recently. You could be forgiven for not knowing, since this fact has received little, if any, news coverage in South Australia � let alone the rest of the country. Even the royal commissioner whose inquiry enthusiastically recommended the plan seems to have been unaware of this crucial detail. Asked on ABC radio back in April whether nuclear waste would be stored above ground "for decades", the royal commissioner, retired Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce replied: "That's not true. That's not what the scenario is". He went on to dismiss a claim about waste being stored above ground for "hundreds of years" that nobody ever made.

Yet the facts are clear, and set out in detail in the consultants' report the royal commission relied upon and the royal commission's report itself. Under the plan, South Australia will begin importing used nuclear fuel � one of the most hazardous materials made by man � 11 years after giving the go ahead to a nuclear waste depository. It will import used nuclear fuel at a rate of 3,000 tonnes-a-year for 30 years, then at a rate of approximately 1,500 tonnes a year for the next 50 years or so.The waste will be stored above ground in a so-called "interim storage facility" (ISF). Not until year 28 of the project will the process of burying the high-level radioactive waste underground begin; it will continue, at a rate of 1,500 tonnes per annum, for 92 years. Do the simple maths: the first barrels of high-level waste arrive in year 11 and the last barrels are buried in year 120. That's 109 years in which high-level radioactive waste will sit above-ground in "interim" storage. For many decades, tens of thousands of barrels of highly dangerous material will remain above ground awaiting burial in a "geological storage facility" or GDF.

Why store the waste above ground for so long?

This was the only scenario on which the consultants or the royal commission could find that a nuclear storage facility would possibly be financially viable. Building an underground storage facility in advance of taking the waste would be a prohibitively expensive and loss-making proposition. Premier Jay Weatherill has preferred not to emphasise the reality that waste would remain above ground for so long as he exhorts the public to "keep an open mind". But it may be one reason why a 350-strong "citizens' jury" voted overwhelmingly to reject the storage of nuclear waste � after hearing from critics a clear explanation of what is involved. Despite its illustrious title, this jury, unlike a normal one, does not get to decide the verdict. A thumbs down from the jurors has not convinced Premier Weatherill the proposal is dead. The royal commission and the State Government have sold the idea on the basis of a consultants' finding that taking the world's nuclear waste may deliver, in today's dollars, more than $51 billion in revenue to South Australia over the 120-year life of the project. Yet that estimate rests on some questionable assumptions, including that South Australia would receive the high price of $1.75 million dollars a tonne for taking the world's nuclear waste but that high price would encourage no competition from alternative facilities.

Who came up with the numbers?

Would you believe me if I told you the report that the commission has solely relied on was co-authored by the president and vice president of an advocacy group for the development of international nuclear waste facilities? Dr Charles McCombie and Neil Chapman of the consultants MCM head the advocacy group ARIUS � the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage. They prepared the report in conjunction with Jacobs, a global engineering and consulting firm which has a lucrative nuclear arm and boasts of its "more than 50 years of experience across the complete nuclear asset cycle". When I interviewed the royal commissioner last week, he initially denied that the consultants who prepared the modelling � that is the sole basis of the commission's recommendation in favour of a nuclear waste dump � faced any conflict of interest. He then said there would have been a conflict of interest had it been the only material the commission had relied upon, but said it was "reviewed by our team of experts and found to be an appropriate estimation of what the costs, risks and benefits might be if we were involved in the storage of waste". That is the same "team of experts" who, apparently, recommended the consultants in the first place. "Our role was to guide [the royal commissioner] on the choice of consultants who would do the work, the methodologies they would use, not to get into the data," Adelaide University professor Mike Young, who headed the team of experts, told the citizens' jury.

Proposed nuclear dump may never proceed

Even if the South Australian Government could convince the voting public in its state, the plan would require federal approval and changes to the law. Despite these obstacles, and the questionable economics of the project, Premier Weatherill appears undaunted. Around the world, those with an interest in the nuclear industry will be keeping a weather eye on his progress. The lack of geologically-stable facilities for storing nuclear waste is holding back the development of the nuclear power industry worldwide. If South Australia were to create a repository for the world's used nuclear fuel, it could provide a huge fillip to global advocates of nuclear power. South Australia has about 30 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves. And a far bigger global nuclear industry would potentially mean a far bigger market for uranium from BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia, the largest known single uranium deposit in the world. There are powerful commercial interests that would benefit if South Australia imports the world's high-level nuclear waste. The strength of public opinion stands in their way.

So much hubris.

Is there a single social justice metric we aren't going backwards on?

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/australia-going-backwards-on-disability-employment/8004246

quote:

Australia going backwards on disability employment Tuesday 8 November 2016 8:36AM (view full episode)

A disability advocate is calling for a greater focus on employment for people with disability, warning Australia has gone backwards in the past 15 years. South Australia's Principal Community Visitor Maurice Corcoran has been recognised with a national award for three decades of work improving the lives of people with disability. He's urging the federal government to do more to empower people through employment.

Orange really is the new black.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/skyrocketing-rates-of-female-incarceration/8004172

quote:

Skyrocketing rates of female incarceration Tuesday 8 November 2016 8:20AM (view full episode)

The number of women living behind bars in Australia has skyrocketed over the last decade, growing at twice the rate of male imprisonment. The most recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show an 11 per cent increase in just one year. In a two part special for SBS television, Insight host Jenny Brockie goes inside the maximum security wing of one of the country's most notorious women's prisons to interview four women.

Lock all them bitches up!

And it looks like there is goign to be ANOTHER productivity campaign.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/11/07/dont-wait-productivity-crisis

quote:

The Productivity Commission has released a discussion paper into increasing Australia's prosperity, while calling for submissions by early December. 7 NOV 2016 - 3:10 PM UPDATED YESTERDAY 3:10 PM

The Productivity Commission warns Australia's high living standards may not appear under threat from a collapse in productivity, but the nation shouldn't wait for a crisis before it acts. In a discussion paper as part of its review aimed at increasing Australia's future prosperity, the commission says a decade of commodity price growth and recent house price inflation have combined to make Australians feel wealthier, even if the reality of low wage growth and falling investment suggests a weak income outlook. "If we were waiting for a crisis to indicate that government should act, there is none - just an inexorable slowing towards reduced opportunity, greater dispute over shares of a smaller-than-expected pie and selective protection," it said on Monday, while calling for submissions by early December.

Will this report get more or less attention than this one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-03/productivity-commission-consumers-should-have-more-control-data/7990302

quote:

Productivity Commission says consumers should have greater control of their own data By political reporter Uma Patel Posted Thu at 12:15am

Everyone should have a right to access government and business data about themselves, the Productivity Commission has recommended. In a draft report, the Government research and advisory body recommended the Government legislate a "comprehensive right" to give consumers more control of their own data. The legislation would override restrictions on data sharing already in legislation, as well as the terms and conditions of any business agreement. "Consumers think they own their own data, well they don't� and only in a very limited way can they control their own data," Productivity Commission chairman Peter Harris said. The Commission also suggested that individuals should be able to pass their personal data collected by one company onto another.<SNIP>

# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:29

Lid: Feb 18, 2005; And the mercy seat is awaiting,
And I think my head is burning,
And in a way I'm yearning,
To be done with all this measuring of proof.
An eye for an eye
And a tooth for a tooth,
And anyway I told the truth,
And I'm not afraid to die.

Synthbuttrange posted:

PM Abbott for christmas

also Gillian Triggs trolling the hell out of the LNP by supporting 18c changes to make it more powerful

She wants to remove insult and offend and substitute it with "vilify". Need to think more on this to see the true difference.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:37

norp: Jan 20, 2004; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

let's invade New Zealand, they have oil

Lid posted:

She wants to remove insult and offend and substitute it with "vilify". Need to think more on this to see the true difference.

Does vilify have a special legal meaning?

# ? Nov 8, 2016 00:54

MysticalMachineGun: Apr 5, 2005

IANAL but vilify puts the onus squarely on the author rather than an imaginary "offended/insulted person"

vilify posted:

speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 01:03

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

yeah, you can (theoretically) vilify someone without offending someone.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 01:27

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

aejix posted:

Anyone got anything good to read about protectionism? Seen a few posters ITT saying it's bad and I've always been of the opinion that it's actually a good thing but have done very little reading about it

It's a broad topic. What did you want to read about? A discussion of the technicalities of free trade and protectionism? Its philosophy?

quote:

Marx posted:
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/1970
"If they [the protectionists] speak consciously and openly to the working class, then they summarise their philanthropy in the following words: It is better to be exploited by one's fellow-countrymen than by foreigners."

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:16

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

It is when you consider where the tax dollars from your exploitation will go. :shrug:

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:18

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

To tax cuts for the rich in your own country instead of somewhere else?

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:22

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

How many countries have had protectionist policies and thought supply side made sense?

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:25

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Now we are all colonies for the corporate empire :v:

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:38

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

How many countries have had protectionist policies and thought supply side made sense?

The US

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:41

Capt.Whorebags: Jan 10, 2005

From my one unit of macroeconomics that was tacked into an InfoSys degree I remember that tariffs end up increasing input costs to exports. either directly, or by upwards wage pressure. hence tariffs end up being a tax on exports as well.

Also you may be employing more people locally, but what they buy is more expensive.

In short, tariffs are inefficient and Australia is a land of contrasts. thankyou.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:42

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

How many countries have had protectionist policies and thought supply side made sense?

America, for one.

Unless it was a rhetorical question?

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:46

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Yeah

# ? Nov 8, 2016 02:47

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Capt.Whorebags posted:

From my one unit of macroeconomics that was tacked into an InfoSys degree I remember that tariffs end up increasing input costs to exports. either directly, or by upwards wage pressure. hence tariffs end up being a tax on exports as well.

Also you may be employing more people locally, but what they buy is more expensive.

In short, tariffs are inefficient and Australia is a land of contrasts. thankyou.

And yet a broad based GST is perfectly AOK. :iiam:

# ? Nov 8, 2016 03:14

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Yeah

lol for the edi without boobs or cameltoe

# ? Nov 8, 2016 03:30

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

iirc a simple version of the case for removing tariffs is that people can buy imported goods more cheaply, increasing their standard of living, and increased competition encourages people here to specialise where there is competitive advantage meaning they can charge more for their output

there's a carve out in standard economics where you can impose barriers against dumping (foreign goods being exported below their cost in their home market) and certain quality controls are a bit of a grey area too

# ? Nov 8, 2016 03:55

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

Cartoon posted:

And yet a broad based GST is perfectly AOK.

One of the benefits of having some form of broad based consumption tax in our otherwise progressive system is that it will catch people who report allow incomes who splash the cash (wealthy retirees, assorted tax dodgers)

# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:08

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Birdstrike posted:

One of the benefits of having some form of broad based consumption tax in our otherwise progressive system is that it will catch people who report allow incomes who splash the cash (wealthy retirees, assorted tax dodgers)

You are joking? Right?

# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:14

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Birdstrike posted:

iirc a simple version of the case for removing tariffs is that people can buy imported goods more cheaply, increasing their standard of living, and increased competition encourages people here to specialise where there is competitive advantage meaning they can charge more for their output

there's a carve out in standard economics where you can impose barriers against dumping (foreign goods being exported below their cost in their home market) and certain quality controls are a bit of a grey area too

What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete?

Otherwise it just seems like a race to the bottom...

I know very little about economics and trade so I'm sorry if this is a dumb or nonsensical question.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:18

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

hooman posted:

What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete?

Otherwise it just seems like a race to the bottom...

I know very little about economics and trade so I'm sorry if this is a dumb or nonsensical question.

I mean they could but that's kind of what the standard model is encouraging, as things like liveable wages and working conditions don't really figure.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:23

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

Cartoon posted:

You are joking? Right?

I'm not trying to preempt your grand remonstrance why consumption taxes are terrible and in fact I'd like to hear what you have to say.

When I was studying tax the effect of the GST was explained as "nobody really understands why it works, but it does." As some form of explanation I have found a relatively simple piece by an actual economist.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:33

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

hooman posted:

What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete?

Otherwise it just seems like a race to the bottom...

I know very little about economics and trade so I'm sorry if this is a dumb or nonsensical question.

It gets really murky, what's a real environmental protection and what's a crypto tariff? Australia bans fruit imports from some places on biosecurity grounds, but it's often seen as a form of protectionism by another name.

Is preventing poor countries from selling their goods in rich countries going to force them to improve conditions for workers, or prevent the country from ever developing to the point where it can improve conditions for workers?

open24hours fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Nov 8, 2016

# ? Nov 8, 2016 04:47

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

open24hours posted:

It gets really murky, what's a real environmental protection and what's a crypto tariff? Australia bans fruit imports from some places on biosecurity grounds, but it's often seen as a form of protectionism by another name.

An NZ friend of mine used to point out honey as the classic example of this. There was some disease bees could get from NZ except it wasn't transmissible via honey and Australian bees had it anyway. He died a decade ago so I can't remember the disease, or exactly ask him what it was, sorry.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:29

Gridlocked: Aug 2, 2014; MR. STUPID MORON
WITH AN UGLY FACE
AND A BIG BUTT
AND HIS BUTT SMELLS
AND HE LIKES TO KISS
HIS OWN BUTT
by Roger Hargreaves

I wish Peter Duton would just go away

# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:45

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Gridlocked posted:

I wish Peter Duton would get locked in an uncomfortably small box.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:46

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Gridlocked posted:

I wish Peter Duton would just go away

Sendng him to an island and locking him up is the safest option.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:51

aejix: Sep 18, 2007; It's about finding that next group of core players we can win with in the next 6, 8, 10 years. Let's face it, it's hard for 20-, 21-, 22-year-olds to lead an NHL team. Look at the playoffs.

That quote is from fucking 2018. Fuck you Jim; Pillbug

hooman posted:

What about tarriffs that account for other factors for the home market costs? If their lack of pay and conditions means they have an unlivable wage, or they routinely burn to death in their OHS nightmare sweatshops can tarrifs account for this to allow Australian companies to compete?

Otherwise it just seems like a race to the bottom...

I know very little about economics and trade so I'm sorry if this is a dumb or nonsensical question.

This is pretty much what is going through my head, thanks for articulating. Labour costs are quite high in aus, plus having comparatively well-functioning approval and regulatory controls that eventually get reflected in your cost of goods - so if another company in another country can get away with paying their workers gently caress all and has juuuust enough internal regulation or self-control to keep the quality of their goods high enough that people will at least keep buying them, how does Australia compete? Just seems like this is inevitably going to lead to erosion of workers rights here?

Fake edit: I mean I feel the obvious answer is more investment in the education/research/development of technologies that we then export but it's not hard to see how loving backwards that entire space has been going in this country for at least the last decade.

aejix fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Nov 8, 2016

# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:55

Megillah Gorilla: Sep 22, 2003; If only all of life's problems could be solved by smoking a professor of ancient evil texts.; Bread Liar

New NT tourism slogan:

# ? Nov 8, 2016 05:57

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

aejix posted:

This is pretty much what is going through my head, thanks for articulating. Labour costs are quite high in aus, plus having comparatively well-functioning approval and regulatory controls that eventually get reflected in your cost of goods - so if another company in another country can get away with paying their workers gently caress all and has juuuust enough internal regulation or self-control to keep the quality of their goods high enough that people will at least keep buying them, how does Australia compete? Just seems like this is inevitably going to lead to erosion of workers rights here?

You
a) find other ways to compete other than on price, or
b) move to enterprises where you have comparative advantage

we've mainly been going for (b) towards mining, agriculture and services. Mining is very capital intensive so it isn't the best generator of employment and it's also dependent on global demand for commodities

we have also thrown in a bunch of (c) join that race to the bottom gently caress it

# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:03

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Birdstrike posted:

I'm not trying to preempt your grand remonstrance why consumption taxes are terrible and in fact I'd like to hear what you have to say.

When I was studying tax the effect of the GST was explained as "nobody really understands why it works, but it does." As some form of explanation I have found a relatively simple piece by an actual economist.

From your linked article:

quote:

The main drawback of consumption taxes is that they hit low-income households hardest, so it is important to complement them with measures such as the GST rebate in order to correct these regressive effects.

This is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The sheer overhead in a GST is an enormous burden on, eventually, 'the investor' and the regressive nature completely fucks over the poor. To the point that even a loving brain dead economist can note it. This then results in placing an additional inefficiency in the whole edifice as the 'poor' (non-investors) have to have their inputs recycled back to them via some massive and cruel bureaucracy and special transfer arrangements for the working poor.

Economist like it because 'numbers go big' without in anyway understanding the socio-economic impacts or indeed caring very much about them.

Tariffs can and should be used as a sort of naughty tax and if there is enough clout in your economy then using them to push trading partners to equalise their working conditions with your own is an entirely valid strategy. If the nation needs a hand up to develop these industries then what a wonderful opportunity for foreign aid. More over even the strongest advocates for dropping tariffs tend to then skew the free trade by heavily subsidising effected industries. Australia tends not to do this for reasons that probably make sense to a loving economist.

Using biosecurity dishonestly is a dog act but there are plenty of examples of where Australia has folded too soon.

If the intention was to make the rich stop evading taxes then perhaps a guillotine? Or more practically a luxury tax so all the poo poo rich gently caress wits want to buy has an enormous mark up on it. And guess what? Rich folks will immediately :qq:

and say it isn't fair.

gently caress them.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:08

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Cartoon posted:

This then results in placing an additional inefficiency in the whole edifice as the 'poor' (non-investors) have to have their inputs recycled back to them via some massive and cruel bureaucracy and special transfer arrangements for the working poor.

You need a transfer system regardless of whether there's a GST or not. It's completely unavoidable unless you want a radically different economic system or you want to kill poor people.

quote:

Or more practically a luxury tax so all the poo poo rich gently caress wits want to buy has an enormous mark up on it.

Some sort of tax on the goods and services they use, perhaps?

# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:13

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

Cartoon has spent too much time filling out BAS forms. I don't disagree that the administrative burden is a drawback.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:19

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Doctor Spaceman posted:

You need a transfer system regardless of whether there's a GST or not. It's completely unavoidable unless you want a radically different economic system or you want to kill poor people.

Some sort of tax on the goods and services they use, perhaps?

Well in my world a 'radically different economic system' (one not built on notions of deserving poor) isn't off the table.

A targeted naughty tax rather than a broad based GST, so remarkably different in fact.

But I completely concede that where we have gotten to atm as a nation is so very very hosed up that no amount of tinkering around the edges is going to fix anything. The fact that economists have a special class for 'investors' and seek to specially pander to their interests speaks volumes. Choose which vagina to come out of wisely.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 06:25

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

woop woop WOOP WOOP

Gleeson senate committee report recommendations

Recommendation 1

That the Senate disallow the amendment to the Direction or the AttorneyGeneral withdraw it immediately, and that the Guidance Note be revised accordingly.

Recommendation 2

That the Attorney-General provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report.

Recommendation 3

That the Senate censure the Attorney-General for misleading the parliament and failing to discharge his duties as Attorney-General appropriately.

Senate committee chair Louise Pratt, has told the senate that the attorney general is unfit to hold office as she tabled the report into the Justin Gleeson matter.

The senate committee report calls for senate to censure Brandis after his failure to consult with the former solicitor general Justin Gleeson on a direction that the SG must gain consent before providing advice to other government departments.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:32

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Some guy on the OCAU forums bet $8900 on Trump winning.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:44

KennyTheFish: Jan 13, 2004

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Some guy on the OCAU forums bet $8900 on Trump winning.

Thats an odd amount to bet.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:47

Senor Tron: May 26, 2006

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Some guy on the OCAU forums bet $8900 on Trump winning.

Got a link? Imagine he is panicking right now.

# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 19:02

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

KennyTheFish posted:

Thats an odd amount to bet.

quote:

It's a real disease isn't it?

I learned from this election that I am also a degenerate gambler, my first time betting and I'm totally out of control. Up to $8,900 now . I'm going to delete my drat account as soon as this election finishes. I just keep thinking that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make my entire retirement fund lol

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=17364950#post17364950

# ? Nov 8, 2016 07:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol November-The race that stopped the creation of a new thread

«‹›51 »