Dude after all of the Trump is gonna win bragging and trolling you can’t / won’t even step up to the plate. Meow meow.
I really hope you are right on this, it is the first encouraging news I’ve heard in a week or so re this election. If I didn’t hate Trump so bad I’d almost take you up on the offer just for giggles.
Right? That would leave you cheering for trump - using all your emotional energy to will him over the finish line. You’d end up hating yourself if he won.
No excuses here. She is going to lose badly. As for the wagering, I can see that you're not all there. You can't even name the polls you claim are being kept out of the RCP average. Even though RCP has overestimated Trump's opponent in each of the previous two elections (AINEC). I have morals. I don't take candy from babies and I don't take money from someone who clearly has a problem.
Sorry, my friend, but I'm on record that I believe Kamala wins. It's the vibe I'm getting. I might end up eating crow, as the polling shows a toss up, but I think they're underestimating the Dobbs effect again. I've read some political science literature on American Political Development (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, eh lol). Two things it discusses are political realignment and events that fracture coalitions. I think Dobbs is an event that caused a fracture in the Reagan coalition, and the realignment that has been happening since 2022 is not something the pollsters are effectively capturing in real time. (Well, they might be capturing it, but they're missing the significance of it because of how they're modeling and weighting based off of old assumptions.) Of course, Dobbs is not the only event that has caused fractures in that coalition, but I think it's the straw that breaks the camel's back. We'll see if my theory is proven right.
What does taking his bet have to do with hating or liking Trump? You just said this is the first encouraging news you've heard in a week and you're taking it from somebody you've never met on a message board who can't even explain his rationale for his thought process? But I would advise you not to take him up on the bet for other reasons that have nothing to do with Trump.
I had to chuckle at this one. There are a ton of Democrats out there who have money riding on Trump right now. Hell, a few of their senators are openly fawning over Trump in campaign ads. (hint: they don't have access to the data @sflagator has)
I will not be taking the bet. Not because I am scared, but because I am certain that if I bet on Trump, Trump will lose. I consider myself to be blessed with many things in life, gambler's luck is definitely not one of them.
Because I don’t bet for no reason. I rarely bet on anything. Maybe I should bet him $1000, just as a consolation prize hedge against Trump winning. If I could pay $1000 to guarantee a Trump loss, I’d do it. Hell I’d do it for $10,000. If I had reason to bet I’d be confident to bet with SFL through a third party.
Since you're so keen and I know your circle jerk partners here would love nothing more than me being off the forum, how about these terms: Harris declared winner by any two of CNN, FOX, or NBC, @okeechobee places a self-imposed ban upon himself from posting on the THFSG forum for 90 days. Trump declared winner by any two of CNN, FOX, or NBC @sflagator places a self-imposed ban upon himself from posting on the THFSG forum for 90 days. Claims of voter fraud or whatever by either side do not void obligation to self-impose said ban. Under no circumstances is the loser allowed to post under his screenname or any other screen name for 90 days on THFSG. I'm betting Trump will win. You're betting Harris will win. Winning is defined as candidate accumulating enough votes to receive 270 or more electoral votes. A 3rd party can be the moderators enforcing the ban from TH. You in?
this has been such a good illustration of the bullshit bad faith argument that I feel like it needs highlighting 1. Make an excuse not to do something because of an imaginary hazard (in this case supposedly a scam) 2. When that doesn't work, question the information 3. When that doesn't work, question sanity 4. But whatever you do, NEVER actually address the core argument/challenge. It's pathetic, honestly. Do you really think people can't see this? Here's a note, you're not that clever
90 days is too short. Make it a year and I'm in i'd prefer to take your money but it's clear you're too chickenshit for that so let's go ahead and do it your way also no one really cares if you are here or not - you're not that important - but since it seems important to you, lets do it - one year ban.
