|
That handicapped list in OP is just about the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Anyone want to team up and mimic that draft? We can switch up the parameters to be more entertaining and competitive. Raskolnikov38 posted:Is there a new intrade around these days? I want to cash in on Jeb while the price is still low. No new intrade...there's Betfair if you're a non-American. That will probably be the most heavily traded market. There's also a site called PredictIt that just launched a couple weeks ago. The details are a bit sketchy, but the deposit limit (as I understand, less than $1000) prevents it from ever reaching Intrade-level. Last but not least, Nevada is lightly discussing legalizing political betting. It wouldn't pass until next year, though, if at all, so likely wouldn't see anything until the back end of 2015. Arkane fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 10, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Chris Christie posted:On the Democrats' side, what about Jim Webb??? Making posts straight outta Biff's Almanac or something...new article out today: quote:Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who served one term, from 2007 to 2013, and then retired, has the potential to win the beer-track vote. In early October, I drove from Washington to a residential building that sits high on a hill in Arlington. On the eighth floor, in a condominium with a sweeping view of Washington’s monuments, Webb has been plotting his own path to defeating Clinton. “I do believe that I have the leadership and the experience and the sense of history and the kinds of ideas where I could lead this country,” he told me. “We’re just going to go out and put things on the table in the next four or five months and see if people support us. And if it looks viable, then we’ll do it.” He running. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/17/inevitability-trap
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Assuming Hillary Clinton runs and loses the primary, who is the Democratic nominee? Is O'Malley really the only legit option here? I cannot possibly imagine Biden winning. He's 73 next year, will look 80, and he acts like he is 8. Senility could be an improvement. Elizabeth Warren would have trouble attracting moderates in purple or non-blue states. Does Gore make a go of it? Any dark horses?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Realistically speaking, while a Clinton loss is possible it will not be to any of the current crop of primary opponents. The most they could do is weaken her enough for a more credible challenger to step in and take the victory. So...who?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Catching up on the news this morning, and the email thing is relatively unimportant No record of emails, and a foundation that receives tens of millions from foreign nations and corporations. What could go wrong? Vienna Circlejerk posted:Remember when she totally hosed up being Secretary of State for four years? No? Because that's a cake job, right? No? I am absolutely not a fan of Hillary but holy poo poo, questions about her ability are dumb as gently caress. With the benefit of hindsight, it's a bit difficult to say she did a good job at State.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:EDIT: ^^^ I was led to believe there are physical copies of the emails, which were turned over weeks ago. Nah she only turned over self-selected emails.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:EDIT 2: Dug up an old article talking about Clinton's State record: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139110/michael-hirsh/the-clinton-legacy At the time of her departure, seemed like a lot of people agreed she did a good job at State. Sky-high popularity levels. But large swaths of the world are in chaos right now. Libya, where she specifically advocated for intervention, will likely be a focal point of her tenure at State. It's also devolved into chaos, with even a group loyal to Islamic State forming in the eastern part of the country. They've been murdering civilians, and I think just recently kidnapped foreign workers. While Clinton did visit a boatload of countries, a lot of that goodwill was flushed away with the Snowden revelations (& she strongly dislikes Snowden).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, making hay over the emails is just part of the generalized Republican "strategy" of constantly filling the air with anti-hillary scandals (BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI). It's not about substance it's just about keeping the base worked up and keeping everyone else vaguely associating Hillary's name with BAD THINGS. The e-mail story was broken (and is being heavily reported) by the NY Times. Maureen Dowd wrote a scathing Op-Ed about it this weekend. And this is a Republican strategy of some kind? Makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Wabbit posted:Hey arkane, who are you pulling for this time? Your guy Huntsman isn't in (I had to actually look his name up he was so forgettable). Are you walking with Walker or standing with Rand? Or Jebbing with JEB? Huntsman turned out to be a bad candidate, but he was a good bet. My thesis was that the winner of NH was ~always gonna be the 2012 nominee, because the Republicans needed an electable candidate and NH punches that card. If Romney had stumbled & Huntsman was a good candidate, Huntsman would've won NH. Easy to be critical with hindsight. If I was betting on someone to be the nominee this time around given the relative odds, it'd be Marco Rubio. He is a good orator, personable, and telegenic. One can't ignore how much looks and relate-ability play into these things. It is much harder to figure things out this year, because the Republicans have at least 3 candidates who are theoretically electable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Arkane, you are very good at betting on the stock market but oh so bad at guessing political nominations. If you think my stock performance is impressive, you'd faint if you saw my Intrade returns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
That's a good poll question. Scott Walker's support is a bit illusory...absent his epic victories against the whining Democrats in Wisconsin, he's an empty shell onto which people can project their ideal candidate. Sorta like Perry for that month he was the frontrunner in 2012. We'll see how he does under the spotlight. Jeb Bush's numbers are interesting, but I imagine Romney would've been somewhat similar in 2012. And yeah that reinforces my belief that Rubio is the major dark horse here. The question becomes where can he win? I don't imagine Iowa will be friendly territory. New Hampshire I guess? There's not an easy path for him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
I thought we established this was a Republican conspiracy not worth commenting on
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Good to see the Clinton campaign is off to such a great start.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Probably going to be at the Marco Rubio announcement. I might even be on tee vee.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Clinton's informal advisor is discovered to be illegally lobbying from his email hack: http://gawker.com/did-clintons-backdoor-adviser-illegally-lobby-for-putin-1693111549 The "Clinton is a lawyer therefore she'd never do anything illegal" comment on that story is pretty great. Not sure if it's sarcastic or serious, but either way, awesome. What are the odds that emails about this are in the ones turned over to State? 1 in a million or 1 in a billion?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Rand probably isn't that much of an underdog to get more delegates than Jeb.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
I got it at >50% that Rubio is the nominee.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
The economy was incredible in 1999. It went to poo poo in the latter part of 2000. No way Hillary is greater than 50% to beat Rubio, right? 50/50 at best, possibly even 60/40 Rubio. The two of them debating will be Nixon Kennedy all over again. She better pray he flames out in the primaries.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
The 1999 thing was a Prince reference, bros, not a specific thing about that year.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Rubio going hard on Iran. His trolling is revealing the ineptitude of the administration's negotiating prowess:quote:Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida and aspirant for his party's presidential nomination, has a very poisonous pill he is seeking to add to Iran legislation this week before the Senate. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-30/marco-rubio-has-a-shrewd-poison-pill-for-the-iran-deal
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You realize the Republicans' candidates for the last like 30 years have been even more cynical and corporate shills right? And they've won quite a few based on that even. FYI, this is 100% bullshit. Bush's DOJ put multiple CEOs in jail who committed financial fraud. Pretty sure we're sitting on 0 for Obama despite whistle-blowers coming out the ying yang, at least 0 high-profile cases. Isn't there a graph that shows that investigations of financial crimes are at an all-time low under Obama? I'm about 95% sure that Obama has by far the worst prosecution record of recent Presidents for fraud. Gotta love the "BUT BUT BUT THE HYPOTHETICAL REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WOULD BE WORSE !" canard. Time to wake up a little.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:Yeah, what I posted is just one tweet in a 57 tweet rambling speech, very strange. He gave a speech today then did a Q&A at the Council of Foreign Relations; Charlie Rose was the moderator.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Sid Blumenthal -- who was blocked from joining State Department, but was instead hired by Clinton Foundation while simultaneously having business relationships with firms seeking Libyan contracts -- had an email address that appears to have been chosen to mimic a white house/state department email address, mimicked State Department formatting in sending non-intel "intel" that served to further to enrich said business relationships (some of these people themselves having financial relationships with the Clintons through other means), and these emails were sent out by Hillary Clinton personally to various key figures on Libyan policy including the late Ambassador. Nope, nothing amiss here. Just a Republican conspiracy. edit: also a shame to see Vox becoming a tool for Republicans... http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money quote:The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different from the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions. Arkane fucked around with this message at 15:57 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhZxDrJi9UE We've learned Hillary's accomplishments as Secretary of State include: -Can't think of anything -Can't think of anything -Can't think of anything -What is secretary of state? -Scott Walker is gonna take mah unions!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
The inevitable Hillary Clinton nomination really warms my heart. http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 quote:Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
Tobermory posted:Gee....it's almost like something happened from October 2010 to September 2012 that would cause Middle Eastern dictatorships to start spending a lot more money on military hardware. What could it be? First we gotta grease the skids a bit with some graft, but then we can get the tools we need to clamp down on our meddlesome citizens! Tobermory posted:Arkane's argument is apparently not that selling weapons to dictators is bad, nor even that increasing weapons sales to dictators is bad, but that the increase in weapons sales is evidence of corruption. The correct argument would be that the global arms trade is a force for evil, and needs to be curbed. "I'll just make up Arkane's position for him, and then disagree with it" = about half the responses to my posts. I think the correct argument is that all 3 of those things are bad? Maybe? Just to be clear, since you are kinda squeaking past the point of the post: you are cool with large donations from bad countries and personal donations to politicians and then those countries subsequently benefiting from the decisions of said politician? This is all good in your eyes? We'll likely never know for certain if there was any kind of quid pro quo, so perhaps the appearance at least is bad?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Your own goddamn summary says that 16 of the 20 bad countries had their deals arranged by the Pentagon and the State Dept. just rubber stamped it. I like your use of "rubber stamp" as if it's just some low level moron in a room giving his a-okay. Raskolnikov38 posted:And where is you complaining about all the arms deals to the KSA before January 20th 2009? hmm? Well if we can find the appearance of quid pro quo on a multiple country scale as well as direct payments to spouses, that would indeed be analogous to what I am posting and real bad. You're saying this is the case? You guys are really going to be bending yourself in pretzels to defend Hillary over the next 18 months.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm pretty sure General Dynamics has no problem giving money directly the person with approval authority So did they do that?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Honestly this is the biggest loving problem with Hillary's campaign, she and Bill just can't help themselves from doing things that are superficially sketchy but when you dig past the scrapes fox news et al have done its ultimately nothing and why its not a big deal can't be explained easily. Can I get a yes or no to these...do you think that using only private email, and deleting half of those emails is only superficially sketchy? How about accepting large cash payments from multiple companies over the past couple of years that could present large conflicts of interest? Not donations, mind you, actual money that goes into her bank account. This is only superficially sketchy? Just Fox News agitprop?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:NYT posted a pretty obvious hit piece about Rubio today about...traffic violations? We're already scraping the bottom of the barrel. This election season is going to be a blast. This reads like a parody piece. Two reporter byline for that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:Rubio scandal list: His mouth was dry once
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:Also, the NYT posted another negative piece about Rubio, this one about his personal finances. His struggles in that regard are pretty much common knowledge, but there are few political arguments worse than "if he can't manage his checkbook, how can he manage the country?!" so it's still an annoying piece. The 4 traffic tickets in 20 years was heinous enough, now they've unearthed that the very same recalcitrant criminal has made some dumb financial decisions and struggled to pay off student loans. Pulitzer worthy stuff here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Gotta love the hedge fund attacks when her son-in-law runs one, the daughter worked at one, and the Super PAC is raking in cash from wall street.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I'm sorry, did I miss a history of failed foreign policy in the State Department during Clinton's helm? Yes, I think you did
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
rear end cobra posted:Who's the Huntsman of your heart this time around Arkane? I think Rubio is a heavy favorite to win the GOP nomination, and will probably be the next President. I'm not a fan of his foreign policy/NSA stances, though. Rand Paul is probably my favorite candidate, but that is going nowhere in a hurry. Pohl posted:She did good. The period she was in office could have been a hell of a lot worse than it was. You may want to reassess that first sentence after reading your second sentence
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Guess I missed Hillary's policy proposal to burn all hedge funds to the ground. As far as I can tell the argument isn't that they shouldn't exist but that they should be regulated in a stricter manner, which is not incompatible with either her son-in-law or daughter working at one. It's in the same vein as thinking taxes should be higher but not kicking in extra to the IRS on your own return. You'd think that after the Obama presidency, people would be wise to the "time to regulate Wall Street" populist bullshit. Let's just take a quick gander at her biggest supporters:  There is a 0.0% chance that Hillary Clinton will do anything significant to regulate Wall Street unless it is forced upon her by Congress or real world events. Any stump speech pablum that says otherwise should be looked at with a jaundiced eye. The fact that her progeny & beau work/have worked in the industry she "decries" is just icing on the cake. Arkane fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jun 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Clinton bans the pool reporter from covering her event in Manchester, NH today. He shows up anyway, isn't let in, then asks to use the restroom, and gets told "hit the woods." What a warm, friendly, and open campaign. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...l?event=event25
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:He's the reporter from England's Daily Mail, which is barely a paper even by Murdoch standards. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, daily mail. If you're going to be a political agenda paper, you have to expect a price in access. GlyphGryph posted:Hillary did nothing wrong. He is the pool reporter...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
RB Holmes makes Jesse Jackson look like an introvert
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Immigration surprise attack.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 21:25
|
|