Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

You know he won't, he'll lose votes, but logically/philosophically it should be the best legal mind who gets the role, if all men are excluded, then I can't see how that selection criteria has been applied, not saying a woman couldn't still get it but needs to be better than all willing and available candidates.

IIRC he's losing with the suburban mums, one reason for picking a female.
 
IIRC he's losing with the suburban mums, one reason for picking a female.

I thought the riots, and mobs assailing people while they dined innocently at restaurants, minding their own business, boosted his appeal with suburbia?

But yes the sample of female voices I hear this side of the pond, doesn't seem overly keen on donald I must say, so if he can get Amy Barrett appointed, who looks the part and would likely appeal to modern women, then it'll do his ratings with soccer mom types good no doubt.
 
Last edited:
I thought the riots, and mobs assailing people while they dined innocently at restaurants, minding their own business, boosted his appeal with suburbia?

But yes the sample of female voices I hear this side of the pond, doesn't seem overly keen on donald I must say, so if I can get Amy Barrett appointed, who looks the part and would likely appeal to modern women, then it'll do his ratings with soccer mom types good no doubt.

The news cycle in the US changes ridiculously fast... Nobody's talking about riots anymore, everybody's focused on this.

Picking someone who's very anti-abortion and pro-housewives-in-the-kitchen might not go over well to the more modern suburban housewive tho... We'll see.
 
The news cycle in the US changes ridiculously fast... Nobody's talking about riots anymore, everybody's focused on this.

Picking someone who's very anti-abortion and pro-housewives-in-the-kitchen might not go over well to the more modern suburban housewive tho... We'll see.

I'm mostly relying on tim pool and youtube clips to keep me informed :laugh: so I'm probably well behind the issues :(

[ shame the news cycle on russia/trump and ukraine didn't move fast, that would've been appreciated ! no media manipulation goes on at all, I'm convinced of that :p]
 
I thought the riots, and mobs assailing people while they dined innocently at restaurants, minding their own business, boosted his appeal with suburbia?

But yes the sample of female voices I hear this side of the pond, doesn't seem overly keen on donald I must say, so if he can get Amy Barrett appointed, who looks the part and would likely appeal to modern women, then it'll do his ratings with soccer mom types good no doubt.

Suffer is right, the news cycle changes fast here. I don't when I heard he was behind with the suburban mums. Maybe he's gained. Although Boris/UK made the news cycle here today, more than once actually.

I think the riots are still going on but hardly covered on national news (CNN/FOX etc..) The local affiliates might be still covering it.

I got 4 sisters, they all hate Trump to varying degrees.
 
Wonder whats happened since i last looked at the thread.
Secret report-groups, Mods fighting, Max making jokes.
Ok.
secret report CABAL...eesh, and they even bought the cloaks and rings and everything
 
Suffer is right, the news cycle changes fast here. I don't when I heard he was behind with the suburban mums. Maybe he's gained. Although Boris/UK made the news cycle here today, more than once actually.

I think the riots are still going on but hardly covered on national news (CNN/FOX etc..) The local affiliates might be still covering it.

I got 4 sisters, they all hate Trump to varying degrees.

Just looking at the odds, and they don't look massively different to before, Joe still favourite, but tellingly one source of info states 80% of bets have been on donald to win, if true that's got to be a significant sign the feeling on the ground is trump will win. The first debate should tell us more, next wednesday, can't wait :cool: ...ahh just seen it's old chris wallace doing the questions, what a surprise :rolleyes: I've no doubt he'll manoeuvre things to help Joe and try to keep it slow.

Might as well bring out the cognitive test as he had a big interest in that before :p
 
Just looking at the odds, and they don't look massively different to before, Joe still favourite, but tellingly one source of info states 80% of bets have been on donald to win, if true that's got to be a significant sign the feeling on the ground is trump will win. The first debate should tell us more, next wednesday, can't wait :cool: ...ahh just seen it's old chris wallace doing the questions, what a surprise :rolleyes: I've no doubt he'll manoeuvre things to help Joe and try to keep it slow.

Might as well bring out the cognitive test as he had a big interest in that before :p

80% of the bets but how much % of the actual money? In the end the odds will fluctuate because of the amount of money coming in not the amount of bets. 20% of the bets could easily be 60% of the money. But definitely more money has come in on Trump because Biden was a bigger favourite before.

If I'd bet on politics I would've put some money on Trump just because of the odds, you won't get a return over evens on a sitting president that often in the future I reckon ;)
 
80% of the bets but how much % of the actual money? In the end the odds will fluctuate because of the amount of money coming in not the amount of bets. 20% of the bets could easily be 60% of the money. But definitely more money has come in on Trump because Biden was a bigger favourite before.

If I'd bet on politics I would've put some money on Trump just because of the odds, you won't get a return over evens on a sitting president that often in the future I reckon ;)

I should have worded that differently, it said 80% of the money wagered, but that is a good point about the odds being tempting, normally they wouldn't be for a sitting pres.
 
I should have worded that differently, it said 80% of the money wagered, but that is a good point about the odds being tempting, normally they wouldn't be for a sitting pres.

So if 80% of the money is on Trump and yet the odds are still in favor of Biden the bookies seem to believe Trump will be beaten. Means absolutely nothing ofcourse, if I remember correctly in 2016 Trump was 10/1 during livebetting on election day :laugh:
 
For once we actually have a valid reason for discussing Trump as he's actively participating in nominating Ginsburg's successor!

Though one could see how the in-house appointments might grate with opposition parties, given that there should be a more level voting system, or failing that, a rotation of candidates erring towards their preferred political standing
 
So if 80% of the money is on Trump and yet the odds are still in favor of Biden the bookies seem to believe Trump will be beaten. Means absolutely nothing ofcourse, if I remember correctly in 2016 Trump was 10/1 during livebetting on election day :laugh:

For these always willing to check exchanges instead of betting sites who always count their own edges, manipulate odds little bit to make them more tempting etc... like at Betsson, Trump was favorite last week etc... They also do that own they own, some bookies might have got much more % of money to other candidate than some other bookie etc...

I guess most of money in this as well is at BF exchange, there people don't get their accounts limited and odds are based on money to be in balance instead of multiple different controlling things bookies use.

Wonder if judge is not going to be there before elections, it was democrats who during the Obama period got frustrated that have to listen other side as well and removed it that now it's much more simple if you have senate (don't want to start to express personal opinions of that great constitutional law which is almost old as bible, nobody not willing to renew it even little bit up to date and therefore it's really easy to read how you wish, rebublicans and democrats both have their own translation about it, is it still really court when decisions are so purely correlating with number of more judges from "correct" party?).
 
For once we actually have a valid reason for discussing Trump as he's actively participating in nominating Ginsburg's successor!

Though one could see how the in-house appointments might grate with opposition parties, given that there should be a more level voting system, or failing that, a rotation of candidates erring towards their preferred political standing

Stop talking so much sense, who are you?
 
Stop talking so much sense, who are you?
Sorry about that. Normal service will resume shortly

tenor.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top