We are with you TRUMP.  From Turkey.  |
|
|
|
I haven't looked into the story in Texas, but here's a great analysis of how Project Veritas was able to fool so many Trump supporters into believing their story (disinformation) about voter fraud/ballot harvesting in Minnesota was credible. https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/project-veritas-ballotharvestingSeems very likely they are working directly with the Trump campaign. |
|
|
|
In 2016 lots of conservatives were unsure of his policies, now they know he will side with conservatism 90% mostly and will make good conservative appointments..
Biden has, by far, more bipartisan support than any other presidential candidate in modern history. BLM riots making people vote Biden? Lol no.. They will make people vote Trump (and be quiet about it)..
From right around the peak of the protests:   |
|
|
|
....
Oh damn. 33%. That's about the same chances they gave Trump to win in 2016.
I personally still think Trump is going to squeak by in Texas, then pull a win in Florida. Who knows what'll happen from there, but once those two things happen we'll be looking at a much easier pill to swallow (for conservatives) of 30-70 Biden, instead of 10-90 Biden. This race is going to be MUCH tigther then the pollsters, 538 included, make it out to be. I'm happy that 538 shows how things can change so very quickly. If Trump wins, I say we can put all the people in the business of making polls and forecasts in the bread lines. Or maybe they can all go work in climate science? And if Trump loses, you can believe every future will be accurate for the rest of your life. Just as rational. |
|
|
|
Hasn't Texas been solid red for decades? Why would she be campaigning there a few days before the election? Let me check...  Oh damn. 33%. That's about the same chances they gave Trump to win in 2016. |
|
|
|
LOL everyone's so feisty with the bets... If Twitchy accepts could you please take it to a new thread - better for you two to hash it out and less distraction here.
Yep, if Twitchy accepts we PM, get our own thread, I wouldn't dream of hijacking yours. I'm just putting some BTC on the line to show I'm serious. I'll pass, thanks though. Already have enough on the line to make things plenty exciting for me. I feel like Florida is closer to a coin flip than any other state, btw, not anywhere near a Biden 2:1 favorite.
The Trump voters are reacting to a hostile and suppressive media with massive, spontaneous demonstrations.
They're reacting to a conservative Media (and Trump) narrative that the media is the enemy of the people and only Trump can save them. In other words: They're reacting to the Federal Government narrative that the media is the enemy of the people and only The Federal Government can save them. I would give you a ton of examples of Trump claiming something was fake news with made up 'phony anonymous sources' that were later proven to be true with Trump fully aware they were true while calling them fake - but we both know that no amount of evidence would ever change your mind if it involved Trump looking really bad.
538 has been doing daily election podcasts recently - definitely worth a listen. Their forcast has Biden winning about 90% of the time. The gap is so large that Biden would still win if he was on the bad end of all the battle ground margins of error. The only way they see Trump winning is if the the polls are completely missing something - which they put at 10%.   |
|
|
|
Not the best analogy since the issue here is inaccurately generalizing millions of people, and Ted Bundy is only one person. But with that aside, if someone said "Ted Bundy was violent for most of his life.", they would also be wrong, just like eddie So according to you, if someone said Ted Bundy was a violent person, this would be a false statement? No. According to you, if Ted Bundy was also a BLM protestor, would that make BLM protestors serial killers? Would you get mad if someone said 'Only Ted Bundy is a serial killer, not the rest of them'? This isn't a 'BLM is good/bad' debate. All I'm saying is that by far, most of the protests are peaceful. The ACLED has been tracking civil unrest around the world for a while. They do a pretty good job at explaining how they collect and organize their data. This will answer all your questions: ACLED Methodology and Coding Decisions around Political
Violence and Demonstrations in the United States of AmericaIf you have a better source, let me know. |
|
|
|
Ted Bundy was also 99% peaceful for this life. The only times he was violent was the 1% where he was viscously murdering and women and shoving knifes into their necks. Clearly a peaceful man behind a peaceful cause!
Not the best analogy since the issue here is inaccurately generalizing millions of people, and Ted Bundy is only one person. But with that aside, if someone said "Ted Bundy was violent for most of his life.", they would also be wrong, just like eddie. And btw, your source reads like it was written by a left wing think tank. I stopped reading when it tried to make the argument that things weren't going to shit in Portland because the rioting that's gone on for months on end is only limited to certain "blocks of the city". What a joke. Not like a federal court house was sieged upon for weeks or anything. Not like the Portland DA is a coward and is dropping all charges filed against rioters meaning they get arrested, released, not charged, and back on to rioting.
I can't even find the methodology they used to determine what was considered peaceful and what wasn't. Perhaps I didn't read it close enough (I probably didn't). Large number of police forces in the U.S. were just told to fall back and not arrest rioters causing damages so we don't even have the data to work with.
And ironically enough, you say this as people are currently rioting and looting in Philadelphia over yet AGAIN another justified shooting of a black man. Is it not tiresome to see this trash happen over and over again? Or is it the polices' fault still?
Are you trying to say that I'm wrong, and most of the protests actually did turn into riots? I'm aware of the violent protests and not trying to say that they aren't an issue. I'm not defending the violence and crime, or even the BLM movement. In case it's not clear, I'm defending the peaceful protestors that are being painted as violent criminals. |
|
|
|
 (hope this one doesn't come back to haunt me) |
|
|
|
After reading your full topic I haven't got anything which can prove that "Bustadice" is doing something wrong with gamblers.
Your judgement about sports betting looks like this to me, " Smoking is injurious to health". Yeah it is injurious to health but people continue smoking after knowing the bad effect of smoking. Similarly gamblers know the bad effect of gambling and what kinda situation can arise for them but they are continuing their gambling activities after accepting all terms and conditions. In this case you can't put blame on gambling platform owners where users took the decision by their own.
How would OP be able to proof the owner of that site manipulates the results? Other than checking each seed or whatever provably fair system they have in place, I don't know how else OP can prove the owner manipulates the results. The whole point of a provably fair system is that if a site is cheating, players have the tools to find out. If a player is making a false accusation, the casino has the tools to protect their reputation. If OP has a legitimate accusation (doubtful), all he needs to do is explain what it is and post the bet ids. |
|
|
|
|
China needs to work on their their pro Biden bots. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
So they can travel somewhere that requires a recent negative test.
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. What were the odds called by the mass-media (and the betting markets) that Hillary would win, in late October of 2016?
For someone that is usually so pragmatic I'm surprised to see you going down the poll-denier path. There were plenty of pundits saying Trump was dead in the water, but that didn't reflect the actual numbers and really anyone that says they know for certain what the outcome will be before election day is either a liar or a fool and should be ignored. The final 2016 betting markets and most models had Trump between a 2-1 and 3-1 underdog to become president. The final national polls on average had Clinton with a 3.2 point lead and she ended up receiving 2.1% more votes. |
|
|
|
|
You and I have action, right eddie?
Edit: yeah I see we do.
|
|
|
|
We're already thinking about much larger giveaways for next year.
A Million Bucks is clearly your best option.  |
|
|
|
Polling companies
polls It has become difficult to conduct polling with the advent of the cell phone, and the outrageous number of spam calls in recent years have made it even more difficult. I don't think pollsters have been able to fix their problems from 2016. In 2018, there was one poll that had Andrew Gilliam up by 7 points right before election day (FL governor), and DeSantis ended up winning. The other polls right before election day had DeSantis down by 4-5 points. Part of the problem is the strength of the Democrat propaganda machine and its strategy of labeling Trump supporters and Republicans as racist. This makes Republicans more likely to hide their political views, especially from strangers (pollsters). I would trust voting data regarding party affiliation more than polls, but this is infallible, for example, approximately 30% of people at Trump rallies are Democrats, and may vote for Trump. I know this is all stemming from Trumps 'fake polls' rhetoric, and I'm never going to convince you to not be a poll-denier, but... The polls for the 2018 House, Senate and Gubernatorial races were over remarkably accurate. As in they got lucky. The average poll was within 2.8% with a slight bias for Democrats of 0.4%. And that included state and district polling which is far less accurate historically than the major polls you see in the days before a presidential election. Looking at just the polls that were off the most and then using those handful of poll to calculate the reliability of the thousands of other polls doesn't really make sense. You have to look at all the results. |
|
|
|
That very minor rule change allowed us to catch 8 multi-accounters who were abusing the contest. It was not a bad change. You can still win 1st place with a 10 cent bet.
Isn't it will be better if the recent leaderboard will be updated much quicker than 10 minutes? Maybe 5 minutes will be greate, it will do, if you will consider this... I'm sure there will be huge number of bets as the clock nears to expire. Goodluck to all that will be participating  We could maybe change that before the end. We will do different promotion all next week with daily "Happy Hour" races What would you prefer: 1) Highest multiplier wins 2) Most recent > 50x multiplier wins, like it is now 3) Most wagered. I think 2) is more interesting to try in an hour long format. What do you guys think? As I mentioned before, unless it's not possible for some reason, having a time you want your 50x+ closest to will just result in a bunch of people grinding the cheapest way to hit a 50x, closing the game before it completes and then a few seconds before the deadline allowing the spin to complete. |
|
|
|
I look at all the material that has Biden winning but then I look outside at all the Trump people. I haven't seen people gather for Biden anywhere here. I believe Florida at least is going to Trump.
There are some houses with Biden/Harris stuff on them though. It's not as one sided as 2016.
The real question is who do you think is more qualified to figure out the opinion of ~150 million people? Polling companies with a proven track record over thousands of elections - some spanning more than 5 decades, or you when you look outside? |
|
|
|
I found it rather interesting when the New York Times released an article the other day stating that Trump has Chinese bank accounts. I have a strange feeling that the Chinese government, being an authoritarian style, would be much harder to skirt around any sort of tax laws - meaning he probably paid more in taxes to China than he has to his home country. This is how a business mind works and it's still shocking that the average working person on the street thinks that Trump is trying to help them and not just enrich himself further.
Haven't seen what he's paid to China, but the NY Times article reported that he paid ~$15k to Panama, $100k to india and $150k to the Philippines. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
