-
Posts
5,175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mSparks
-
-
1 hour ago, hector said:
Given that parliament has shown their unwillingness to allow a no deal Brexit, this allows the EU to demand concessions from Britain in exchange for extending the deadline. Well played. This can probably go on for a while.
dont think i shared this here. but this lovely short little video pretty much explains everything. for all the hours and hours of reel out there. this is all that matters.
-
-
-
since you are talking about betting. I really should point out a couple very big differences between Brexit and the US presidential election.
Firstly, Brexit was a straight up vote. when the polls were 50/50 it really was a 50/50 probability with a 10/1 payoff. This is not the case with the US election, because it is a first past the post system with an electoral collage vote outcome that currently heavily favours the democratic party.
Secondly, and probably more importantly. with Brexit the overwealming strength of rational argumentation was in favour of Brexit. This is not the case for Trump v Clinton.
Thirdly all my own research suggests the msm polls are massively overestimating trumps national support. He has a strong, passionate marginal support. But marginal is exactly that - small. If you want a quick and dirty version of that, compare pro trump youtube reaction video views with pro clinton ones.
-
Trump is now 5/1 at Sky Bet and they let you add this pick to accumulator (most sites don't). Max payout for Political bets is £25k.
I think Brexit was about 6/1 or 7/1 a few days before the referendum, it might have been higher.
Day before was 10/1 on Brexit
-
" Soros is mostly backing Trump..."
???
He was the largest single donor Clinton, and she has always behaved like she was his puppet
Sorry, I was thinking of Carl Icahn, although both basically own both candidates.
-
The only difference between a monarchy and a republic is in a republic the various heir apparents fight their internal conflicts with the peoples votes rather than the peoples pitchforks.Then why are they backing Clinton?
When she loses (or even if she wins) the voters are going to be VERY pissed off with the elites.
If a revolutionary mood sweeps the country, they are going to be Exiled or Worse.
I vote for the "or worse" for Hillary's most corrupt top donors, like Soros - maybe they will just go down the list,
and "deal with them all - this type of action may be very popular.
I am seeing public support now in the Philippines, were hundreds or thousands of Drug dealers have been killed.
In this morning's paper, a poll was released on Duterte's first 100 days, and he gets a very strong support:
+ 64 Net Support : +77 Positive - 13 Negative
Much better than the average New President.
If the Clintons, Comey, Loretta Lynch, and Soros were all arrested on Day-1 of a Trump Administration,
I imagine it would be very popular
As long as there are people to dumb to do anything other than follow it will always be so.
Trump, Clinton. what exactly do you think the difference is?
Both have their micro empires. Neither empire puts people first.
oh
and Soros is mostly backing Trump. Not Hillary. Democrats inside parts of his empire aside.
-
->Ask yourself why Elites in both parties support Clinton
Thats easy.
Because she is closer to Trump in her policy veiw than Bernie Sanders, and also backing the loser doesn't win you favours.
-
It's worse than that. Second & third level souls are in the majority in this dimension.
Their worst traits:
1) Their early programming becomes unshakeable.
2) They don't know how to question their motivation.
3) Third level types with high intellect are the ones the controllers manipulate into seeming positions of 'power', & the second level become the superannuated, unquestioning 'jobsworths'.
Apologies for being so esoteric. Suggest sitting back in hiding & wait for the next levelling planetary catastrophe.
No need to apologise, you should know by now I spend most of my days at a level very few people understand, to crash back to reality every now and again to watch the repeats.
But I wouldn't go that far. Basic Layer Cake stuff of the isolated and insulated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRQH-dukb-Q
As for sitting back and hiding, like I said on the WWIII incoming thread
Plus I have my own nuclear bomb shelter, learnt general survival, firearms, motorbikes and now helicopters.
End of the world could be fun - or I'll be dead and not care.
-
Just out of interest.If Hillary won on this Machado thing, I would have NO RESPECT for females voter in America
Imagine the extreme vanity and self-possession in takes to vote against Trump, because he called a beauty contestant "fatty" 20 years ago,
and instead vote for a Woman who commits serious crimes and kills people!
It shows a huge character flaw in females, and (frankly) makes me wonder if I should be living in a country who gives such people the right to vote
How can our planet progress if hurting feelings (decades ago) matters more than killing people and being a Queen Bee of crime?
do you know many "all american" women?
Think I'd stereotype them as desperate housewives dreaming of being kim khardasian.
Your respect is really not something they are looking for. A very special breed of crazy.
-
half decent breakdown of what the polls are doing wrong here:Rasmussen poll.Clinton by 3%.
Within margin of error.
Electoral college anomalies clearly going to be key.
Doc,have you any polling data re ethnic minorities?Are there any good websites for this sort of data?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-polls-and-demographics-disagree/
Post debate the male female divide is even more important. Targeting the Alicia Machado story during the debate was quite clearly aimed squarely and soley at women.
It also leaves Trump with no way to attack her through Bill.
-
Females:
traditionally they lean dnc and watch and believe the msm religously.
In short, they lack discernment, and vote as they are told to.
This is now the area (independent female voters) most in need of "a wake up call"
They have pretty much always been the msm's target demographic.
Most mens attention span barely makes it to the adverts during the half time entertainment.
-
no doubt soros and icahn have spent a lot of money to get you to believe that is the case. but a simple look at the demographics of the us shows that isnt true."I dont play rigged games... There's a reason you can't bet on pro wrestling"
Hillary's only hope is to rig the election.
I think she will try, and may be able to swing 5-10% of the vote.
But if it is a landslide for Trump, the election may not be rig-able
->Example: I believe he is now at 18% of the Black vote, and climbing.
is not exactly a landslide for trump.
The only way he stands a chance of winning legitimately is if a huge portion of female voters suddenly decide to both start supporting him, and also the gop.
While traditionally they lean dnc and watch and believe the msm religously.
In 1996 Bill Clinton obtained the votes of 11% more women than men: 54% of all women and 43% of all men. The only other president to get a higher women vote was Barack Obama with 56%. Bill Clinton won with 49.2% of the popular vote or 47 million votes.
-
I dont play rigged games... There's a reason you can't bet on pro wrestling. Also been turning a solid 18% every two weeks recently (although currently spending all the profits on toys) so any risk even at 40% in 36 days is attractive but not quite attractive enough, especially when the downside is a total loss. I'd have to put 1/3 on trump which would knock that 40% down to 7%.Takes two sides to make a trade viable.
Polls are a guide but as Brexit,and GE 2015 showed,they are no more than that as a predictive tool.
.I'd vote Trump if I was a US citizen but when it comes to cash I'm unemotional about it.If I thought Hilary was value at 1.4 I'd be backing her.
Trump is a risk,I just don't think he's a 3.85 risk.
Edit to add
If you're right on the 67/33split then I presume you're piling onto HRC at 1.4?
Do you think that's value?
Youve got the likes of Icahn and Soros both throwing their billions behind trump. Presumably to gaurantee a faster start to wwiii. Guessing the chances they successfully rig it in his favour is beyond my current capabilities.
This method worked well for both the ge2015 and brexit. (although the ge was all about shifting voting boundaries).
tldr
I agree there is a good chance this election will be rigged - for Trump to win.
also. not an insignificant chance that one of the old codgers doesnt live another 36 days. They are both close to pushing up daisies.
_____
on clinton voters not turning up.
I disagree. women will turn out en masse to elect the first female us president.
men will not turn out en masse to burn the system down. while a lot of them undoubtedly want to. when push comes to shove i very much doubt they have the guts to jump. they'll have to be pushed.
-
I have a range of bets placed on Betfair between 5.2 and 3 that average at around 3.8.
I set my limit for my initial outlay and am going to reassess with a week to go.
I'd be happy to sit on this bet but the longer this lingers on with his odds refusing to budge much below 3,the more chance I think there is of possibly getting some 5+ bets on the day.The only way these markets can be staying this far out is if some Hilary backers with deep pockets and an emotional attachment to her candidacy are keeping him out at 3.
Good piece here via Drudge
Just look at Maine where Romney lost by 15% in 2012 and the polls(which generally favour Hilary) have some touching 3%.
New Jersey was an 18% Obama win in 2012 with a recent poll having Trump 4 behind.This isn't even what's defined a battle ground state by RCP
I think that's a terrible bet, and here's why:
Rough estimates of trump support by group (with Clinton being "not Trump"):
White males:60%*1
White females:5%
Blacks:1-10%
Hispanics:60%*2
The "wins or draws" for Trump online polls are because the vast proportion of online participants are white males.
*1 Excluding the "no way vets will vote for him" aspect.
*2 Total Hispanic vote is interesting, and I'm not exactly sure. I put it this high because although the total population of Hispanics are undoubtedly opposed to him, most of them can't/wont vote, and the ones that do are the legal, eligible to vote Hispanics who would rather not have the competition from their illegal brethren.
The HUGE problem with the poll esitmates is those 95% of white females, 90-99% of Blacks and the entire Hispanic population are not represented in them.
That gives a result of
60*0.5*0.67 + 5*0.5*0.67 + 10*0.125 + 60*0.127 = 31/93 = 33%
to Trump
and
40*0.5*0.67 +95*0.5*0.67 +90*0.125 +40*0.127 = 62/93 = 67%
to Hillary
So while it may not be a total landslide for Hillary even given everything Trump has done to exclude himself, there is approaching zero chance of him actually winning.
Edit:checking my estimates now.
First I found was
But it wont give anything more than a guide because its % with favorable opinion rather than % for trump/clinton
-
I completely agree.THE PRESS IS Hugely BIASED, and it is more and more obvious
Extreme coverage of Hitlarys none crimes like fraternizing with the communists and doing lawyer type stuff. And exactly zero coverage of:
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpstc9r_esA
Although its highly amusing to think of criticizing hillary for having had the job of defending people like him in court.Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Perhaps if he wins the presidency he can employ her as his lawyer.
-
These psycho's believe that declaring war still unites a country and gains them popularity, which it does but to a lesser extent because people realise more now that war should be avoided at all costs. If anyone of those political assholes had to go to war they'red never vote for it again or they'rd be shot for desertion. Sadly they stay in their bunkers reducing the population as instructed by their master bankers, oil cartels and the Royalty vipers.
Oil and Drug cartels.
But it's actually more confusing than that.
The last time, surprisingly or not, before Obama, was Clinton.
This. imo, is because the party they represent are actually close to decent human beings (and more so as media has become freer).
Although obviously not adverse to letting slide the more subversive means of achieving the goals of their master bankers, oil and drug cartels and the Royalty vipers. Not willing (despite significant pressure) to declare all out war in the face of adversity.
Nothing a few tens of millions Chinese and Russian troops taking a quick trip over the Arctic wont fix.
-
I don't think it matters that much about who's in power, left, center or right, it just gives the Elites the opportunity to swing society like a pendulum to give people the impression they have choice and their vote matters. Any NWO will likely be based around some form of so called communism.
If the people want real change they should withdraw their vote and support for the existing corrupt system. By voting for the same old puppets and expecting change is madness.
Also
.."In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make the world free from nuclear weapons. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It was all fake. He was lying"
When was the last presidency the US government didnt declare war?
-
....The only person I trust and who's qualified to do the job of President is Killary Clinton, well, I don't need to listen to anymore - liar, liar pants on fire....
Thing is, Hillary is very likely is the only chance the Democrats have of keeping the whitehouse.
As much as Bernie would do a much better job.
America is right wing.
Bernie is very far left.
So while its awesome to see the shift in opinion that led to a far left candidate actually even come close to taking the candidacy, that shift is not significant enough to not have a right wing nut job in the white house yet. And Hillary has built up enough favors over the years with other right wing nut jobs to actually make some decent changes.
Whoever gets it, it'll still only be a 4 year presidency though.
-
There is a long list of the "old globalist" media."The washington post is one of the few that isn't "globalist controlled media",
Where you get that bit of misinformation from?
(The usual place on your back side?)
Of course the WP is one of the very worst of the controlled media.
Bezos may be another crypto-Jew like they say.
But you do not need to be a Jew to be a Globalist (Murdoch? but it seems to help, as Soros demonstrates)
BTW, I heard a podcast in the last 2 days, with someone talking about how Soros looks like he aged 10 years in the last 1-2 years.
Maybe he is stressed, or maybe it is his new young wife draining him somehow
I think it is possible that these old globalists like: Soros, Rockefeller, Bush Sr,, Kissinger and even Bill Clinton may "make an exit" soon
from the prison planet that they he created, so we can get on with changing it
They include, for example.
Fox, CNN, BBC, NBC, ABC
These lot "only" do elitist propaganda, telling you what to think about and targeting emotions to manipulate perceptions and cover up what they are really about.
They are also, mostly "dead" in terms of eyeballs (although, not yours it seems .
I don't know where to start... most glaring is "People who might create a job that you might like to have, or a product you would want to buy".Seriously dude, wtf?
Seriously, do the people on the platform represent you? Or even truth-speaking?
Do you see any intelligent and hard-working, responsible people on that platform?
People who might create a job that you might like to have, or a product you would want to buy.
Michele spoke mostly about her children. But do you think Hillary H3ll would really be good for anyone?
He speech was about making good on a promise made 8 years ago to get Hillary to drop out and support Obama.
I am pretty certain that both Barack and Michele detest Hillary - but Trump may put them in jail with Hillary.
That's fox talking, and typical right wing doublethink.
Governments "job" is not to create jobs or make products.
It is to provide public services like healthcare, transport, police, fire, education, defense of the nation and social justice - you know all the stuff that is wholly unprofitable (or should not, morally, be a rent seeking exercise) but society actually needs, but decades of right wing nutjobs in the US who see government as a way to line their own pockets at everyone elses expense have let slip to the point even the low and middle income countries now have better public services.
To address the problems in society and do what can be done to fix them.
How exactly can Trump "create jobs" as president that he can't now?
Other than by literally stealing funds from healthcare, transport, police, fire, education, defense of the nation and social justice (which is exactly what he has said he will do, and why he is being cheered by all the old guard who absolutely still think of people as their capital to own and do with as they please)
That Trump has decided to represent this mindset is exactly why I can believe that he did rape that 13 year old girl and treat her like a piece of rubbish to be thrown away while he was on Epsteins island.
He's got the form, and hasn't denied he was there afaik.
http://fusion.net/story/328522/donald-trump-accused-rape-sexual-assault/.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LnY-jy_cE0
God rest his soul.
^biggest beneficiaries of the NHS btw was white males. since before the NHS, as bread winners, when they got sick there was no money to pay for their healthcare. Whereas, the men would pay for their wives healthcare when they got sick. Has raised the male life expectancy from 50 to nearly equal with women now since it started in 1948.
So when Trump says he will repeal Obamacare, that is a literal threat to the lives of nearly all the white males in the US.
But never mind, Jews and women and minorities and stuff.
-
Wow, thank you, truly beautiful speech by an amazing women. Little tear in my eye.
Think that will actually clinch it. Not just a phenomenal endorsement, but possibly one of the best monologues in the campaign so far. All the boos have gone.
As for your "ooh look minorities and women and Jews",
Seriously dude, wtf?
-
Trump is doing a great job, considering he is facing a well financed (bought?) Democrat,
and the Globalist controlled media that is heavily against him
People are awakening to the spin (from the Media - proven in the last few days by the wikileaks-released emails
xx
The Washington Post disguised their ill-legal fundraising efforts for Hillary.
Only ONE of the many outrageous things revealed
The washington post is one of the few that isn't "globalist controlled media", so not really a good example (athough I'm sure there are plenty of CIA folk still in employment there) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos
Plus I'm not sure what you mean by "great job".
If you think "great job" means "reinforce the sterotype that white males are sick retarded arseholes" I'd agree.
But that isn't exactly a good or great thing imho.
If you mean that he's doing a "great job" of bringing lots of ignorant independent voters to vote for the evil fucktards that are the reptilian party I'd also agree.
But again, not exactly a good or great thing imho.
If you mean "great job" of promising his bessy mate George Soros
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/trump-pals-around-with-george-soros
everything he wants, yeah, that shit too.
-
The Democrats seem to think white males do not exist, and do not need to be represented
Probably more likely because the long list of white males before Obama gave white males a really bad name.
"George Bush made it impossible for a white male to get elected".
Trump isn't exactly doing us any favours either.
-
very funny that anyone would think Bernie supporters would go anywhere near Trump.
Trump and the republicans are everything they hate about Hillary multiplied a thousand times.
bernie supporter on trump:
War On! Britain is still battling over Brexit
in NEWS Commentary, 2021 & Beyond
Posted
lol.
gbp. forgot all about that pos.
gbp is deader than a argentinian peso surely.
Already only really good for buying dirty donner meat made from skinned rats.
Once London falls post no deal brexit there will likely be some decent upside. Other than that you should of been out of gbp more than 2 years ago.