Can Biden win?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

    Jesus Christ himself was a Jew..
    And he was a dark-skinned Jew, as per most historians...

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian Profit View Post

    Care to give a link to a reputable source for these videos being taken down because they supported Trump? And show it was because he supported Trump?
    In your original post, you wrote:

    Don't forget Youtube. They are now removing videos posted by Christian pastors with political commentary or who are predicting Trump wins.

    You seem to be implying this was just happening in your first post. Now you say it happened in 2011.
    I would even take a FOX news link to this story. Seems like a big deal.
    Don't be a Trump on this one and throw out a lie hoping that no one will check you or that your supporters are too stupid to check for the truth. I will.

    If Pastors are using their churches to push politics, they should be ready to give up their tax free status in order to support the pussy-grabbing, porn star f-ing president. You know, the type of president a pastor should be supporting.
    You mean as opposed to the pussy-grabbing manifestly corrupt,bribe-taking, blackmailing, plagiarizing, senile, serial liar, quid pro quo Joe vice-president that he is running against? Its okay for pastors that support Biden to continue to receive tax-free status as they steal millions.

    No. The original visions and prophecies came in 2011. There was just a movie released in October of 2020. There is a book that is the basis of the movie that probably came out in 2016 or so with an update in 2019.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOc...ez9XUPQ/videos

    On your earlier post, no real Christian can be an enemy of Israel or of the Jews. Jesus Christ himself was a Jew. If someone says that he is a good Christian and then says things that are anti-Semitic, he is a liar.
    Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Today, 01:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian Profit
    replied
    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

    Brian, come on you are better than that. I never heard of your Florida pastor.

    Christians are not responsible for every crazy person claiming to be a Christian. The one I am talking about is the one that predicted in 2011 that Trump would be president.
    Care to give a link to a reputable source for these videos being taken down because they supported Trump? And show it was because he supported Trump?
    In your original post, you wrote:

    Don't forget Youtube. They are now removing videos posted by Christian pastors with political commentary or who are predicting Trump wins.

    You seem to be implying this was just happening in your first post. Now you say it happened in 2011.
    I would even take a FOX news link to this story. Seems like a big deal.
    Don't be a Trump on this one and throw out a lie hoping that no one will check you or that your supporters are too stupid to check for the truth. I will.

    If Pastors are using their churches to push politics, they should be ready to give up their tax free status in order to support the pussy-grabbing, porn star f-ing president. You know, the type of president a pastor should be supporting.
    Last edited by Brian Profit; Yesterday, 08:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian Profit View Post

    You mean this one, that called impeachment a Jew coup? If it is, it is disingenuous of you to to focus on the "predicting Trump wins" part of the story.

    https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-remov...213240124.html
    Brian, come on you are better than that. I never heard of your Florida pastor.

    Christians are not responsible for every crazy person claiming to be a Christian. The one I am talking about is the one that predicted in 2011 that Trump would be president.
    Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Yesterday, 07:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    Originally posted by Victor Plotkin View Post

    Trump now has significantly more chances, around 44%. Looks like the company against Biden's son works pretty well.

    The data being gleaned from Hunter Biden laptop isn't being used against Joe Biden's son. He's not worth the effort. On the other hand, Presidential Candidate Joe Biden is worth the effort.

    It does indeed look like the 'company' to expose yet another 'high' ranking Democratic crook is working pretty well. Barely There Biden 2% down last week (head-to-head) ... another 2% swing this week would put the race within the margin of error.


    Next debate - winner takes all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor Plotkin
    replied
    Originally posted by Victor Plotkin View Post

    2.62 odds on Trump reflect 38.2%. Looks like, you calculated 1/3.62= 27.6%, which is not exactly right.

    Biden with odds 1.44 has 69.4%. Sure, bookmaker has advantage, because 38.2 + 69.4 = 107.6%. To get real numbers, we should divide by 1.076.

    Trump: 38.2 / 1.076 = 35.5%
    Biden: 69.4 / 1.076 = 64.5 %

    So, 35.5% - 64.5% is the real odds right now.

    The similar approach for Michigan gives Trump around 28% there.

    I am waiting for Trump with below 25% chances (odds of 4).
    Trump now has significantly more chances, around 44%. Looks like the company against Biden's son works pretty well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aris Marghetis
    replied
    Originally posted by Brian Profit View Post

    I agree with your citing of Obama appointees also doing it. However, Trump has done it to another level.
    Here are her donations to all senators:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/de...contributions/

    To say that Obama got $53000 from his appointees is quaint. She gave over $900000 more to the senators that voted to confirm her. Any conflict there?

    Usually, they only get jobs as ambassadors, but Trump put some of them directly into his cabinet. I know you are a thoughtful and principled person on these issues, so I am sure that you are aware of the arguments against Trump. One of them is that he criticized Hillary saying she would put Wall Street executives into her cabinet. Then he turned around and put more in than any other president in the past. And many of them donated to his election campaign.

    As for the moderator, the conservatives had Wallace for the first one, so it is hard to argue life is unfair.

    And to be clear, being a conservative is fine. I have some of those tendencies myself sometimes. However, Trump is a f-ing clown and to defend him based on facts is difficult. Hunter Biden making money in Ukraine? How about the patents Ivanka got from China? I wonder who will make more because of what their last name was?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybe.../#46ce99711d60

    I would rather Trump supporters say he is an idiot, and bad at his job, but he is giving me what I want and I don't care about other people's livelihood, which is the truth if they were able to be honest.
    Very powerful post Brian.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian Profit
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
    It appears that there is an overlap between donators and getting a position. Perhaps if someone gets a position, all the money they gave the campaign/candidate should be transferred out of the party coffers to a well-known charity.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/news/17...ted-over-53000

    "President-elect Obama’s Cabinet appointees and advisers contributed more than $53,000 to his presidential campaign, according to research by The Hill.

    Several Cabinet appointees contributed the maximum of $4,600 allowed for an individual donor. The list includes former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, who is slated to become Obama’s U.S. trade representative, and Karen Mills, a Maine venture capitalist who is slated to lead the Small Business Administration.

    Others who maxed out their contributions are Eric Holder, nominated to be attorney general, and Susan Rice, U.N. ambassador-designate.

    It’s not uncommon for those chosen for Cabinet positions to have donated heavily to the campaign of the presidential winner. While campaign contributions don’t hurt in Cabinet selections, they are more a reflection of “ideological agreement, friendship or party loyalty, rather than in return for campaign support,” said Kenneth Gross, who leads Skadden Arps’s political law practice.

    “The president-elect’s sole criterion for assembling his Cabinet is looking for people of outstanding qualifications and excellence to serve the American people,” said Tommy Vietor, Obama’s spokesman.

    While several of Obama’s Cabinet picks maxed out their contributions, many donated in the $2,000 range, such as Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), Obama’s choice to become secretary of Labor. ..."



    https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/

    "The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates between or among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States are a permanent part of the electoral process. ..."

    Unlike members of a government cabinet, which I would expect be filled with partisans, I personally think if they want to "benefit the American electorate" they would have non-partisans as moderators.
    I agree with your citing of Obama appointees also doing it. However, Trump has done it to another level.
    Here are her donations to all senators:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/de...contributions/

    To say that Obama got $53000 from his appointees is quaint. She gave over $900000 more to the senators that voted to confirm her. Any conflict there?

    Usually, they only get jobs as ambassadors, but Trump put some of them directly into his cabinet. I know you are a thoughtful and principled person on these issues, so I am sure that you are aware of the arguments against Trump. One of them is that he criticized Hillary saying she would put Wall Street executives into her cabinet. Then he turned around and put more in than any other president in the past. And many of them donated to his election campaign.

    As for the moderator, the conservatives had Wallace for the first one, so it is hard to argue life is unfair.

    And to be clear, being a conservative is fine. I have some of those tendencies myself sometimes. However, Trump is a f-ing clown and to defend him based on facts is difficult. Hunter Biden making money in Ukraine? How about the patents Ivanka got from China? I wonder who will make more because of what their last name was?

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybe.../#46ce99711d60

    I would rather Trump supporters say he is an idiot, and bad at his job, but he is giving me what I want and I don't care about other people's livelihood, which is the truth if they were able to be honest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

    Don't forget Youtube. They are now removing videos posted by Christian pastors with political commentary or who are predicting Trump wins.
    I haven't read any articles that have YT execs on Biden's payroll ... not yet anyways. But both Facebook's executive Jessica Hertz and Twitter’s director of public policy, Carlos Monje, are now on Biden's payroll. That Chinese money funneled through crackhead Hunter to his father "The Big Guy" is really being splashed around.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/social...r-hunter-biden


    And folks wonder WHY, and more importantly HOW, those revealing New York Post articles keep on being suppressed by Facebook & Twitter???

    Golly Gee ... both Facebook's executive Jessica Hertz and Twitter’s director of public policy, Carlos Monje, work for the Biden transition team ... that's the WHY ... and the How!

    The American voter didn't appreciate getting played by Crooked Hillary ... Corrupt Joe Biden comes from the same swamp, ha!

    Next week we'll see even more from crackhead Hunter's laptop ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom O'Donnell
    replied
    It appears that there is an overlap between donators and getting a position. Perhaps if someone gets a position, all the money they gave the campaign/candidate should be transferred out of the party coffers to a well-known charity.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/news/17...ted-over-53000

    "President-elect Obama’s Cabinet appointees and advisers contributed more than $53,000 to his presidential campaign, according to research by The Hill.

    Several Cabinet appointees contributed the maximum of $4,600 allowed for an individual donor. The list includes former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, who is slated to become Obama’s U.S. trade representative, and Karen Mills, a Maine venture capitalist who is slated to lead the Small Business Administration.

    Others who maxed out their contributions are Eric Holder, nominated to be attorney general, and Susan Rice, U.N. ambassador-designate.

    It’s not uncommon for those chosen for Cabinet positions to have donated heavily to the campaign of the presidential winner. While campaign contributions don’t hurt in Cabinet selections, they are more a reflection of “ideological agreement, friendship or party loyalty, rather than in return for campaign support,” said Kenneth Gross, who leads Skadden Arps’s political law practice.

    “The president-elect’s sole criterion for assembling his Cabinet is looking for people of outstanding qualifications and excellence to serve the American people,” said Tommy Vietor, Obama’s spokesman.

    While several of Obama’s Cabinet picks maxed out their contributions, many donated in the $2,000 range, such as Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), Obama’s choice to become secretary of Labor. ..."



    https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/

    "The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure, for the benefit of the American electorate, that general election debates between or among the leading candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States are a permanent part of the electoral process. ..."

    Unlike members of a government cabinet, which I would expect be filled with partisans, I personally think if they want to "benefit the American electorate" they would have non-partisans as moderators.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian Profit
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
    Totally unbiased moderator. Nothing to see here:

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/17/kriste...democrat-ties/
    Hi Tom!
    Just wondering, is it ok that a number of people in high posts in Trump's administration have donated to him? If the moderator's donations should exclude her, should actual important jobs also be off the table? If donations get you a job you are not qualified for, shouldn't someone like Betsy DeVos be your first target? Absolutely no knowledge of public education, but got the job. At least the moderator is a journalist.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...and-the-party/

    Personally, I do not think that the moderator makes much of a difference if Trump is going to say things like "stand down and stand by" while he interrupts like a crackhead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian Profit
    replied
    Originally posted by Vlad Drkulec View Post

    Don't forget Youtube. They are now removing videos posted by Christian pastors with political commentary or who are predicting Trump wins.
    You mean this one, that called impeachment a Jew coup? If it is, it is disingenuous of you to to focus on the "predicting Trump wins" part of the story.

    https://news.yahoo.com/youtube-remov...213240124.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom O'Donnell
    replied
    Totally unbiased moderator. Nothing to see here:

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/17/kriste...democrat-ties/

    Leave a comment:


  • Vlad Drkulec
    replied
    Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post

    Nice try Twitter, Facebook, CNN & Co..

    \

    .
    Don't forget Youtube. They are now removing videos posted by Christian pastors with political commentary or who are predicting Trump wins.

    Leave a comment:


  • Neil Frarey
    replied
    In the wake of exposing just how scandalous/swampy the Biden family seems to be ... Barely There Biden’s polling edge eroded this week by about 2 percent.

    IBD/TIPP national tracking poll, released Saturday, puts Biden at 50 percent in the head-to-head match-up, with Trump at 43 percent. The 7 point advantage just 5 days ago was a 9 point advantage ...16 days remain.

    Still to come; more emails from crackhead Hunter detailing how he planned to cash in big on behalf of Joe Biden with the Chinese. Seems like the fallout from the New York Post big 'reveal' has just begun.

    Nice try Twitter, Facebook, CNN & Co..

    Looks like the American people have already got the message!!!

    And the more Biden tries to deny ... even blaming 'Russia' ... the more the American voter will smell a rat. They've smelt this kind of rat before! What's her name? Crooked Hillary?

    (Loved that Clinton Foundation!)

    :))))


    .
    Last edited by Neil Frarey; Sunday, 18th October, 2020, 02:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X