|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 23, 2024 12:26:55 GMT -8
....LOL. Victim? I'm just responding to you attacking me out of nowhere, without even bothering to do your own "fact checking." I'm responding to YOU. I didn't even address you. I posted an article, with NO commentary. None. And then you crafted a post, filled with inaccuracies, like I didn't do my homework for class and I'm supposed to be "sorry" for not seeing the future. And then you want to play the victim after attacking me and accusing me of being a victim. Uh, k. I posted the excerpt of the article when it was published. I then went on with my day. The rebuttal, posted SEVEN HOURS later, taken at face value by you, a conservative-leaning, excuse-making agenda pusher, wasn't something I was going to endorse, as the evidence is flimsy....at best. As far as rebuttals go, it's not strong in the slightest. I know you think there's an army of people on here that support you, there isn't. You're not cogent enough on your own two feet to figure things out for yourself. Your "fairness" is a sham, all it means is you're not willing to take a stand on the correct side of history. That's not a badge of honor, it's just a lack of fortitude. Of course you're talking about this incident only, your entire argument falls apart once you stop. But you're not even capable of doing that correctly. I believe Goldberg, you believe two people who weren't even in the room. More importantly, knowing what I know, I believe in the clear, obvious, doesn't-take-rocket-science evidence we have already. The evidence you refuse to even address. Ha!!! You decided to lazily throw out an article that ended getting refuted by the sister, family and their Attorney. Par for the course. Not shocked, again. You also don't address the suspicion of why it came it now, four years after. Hmmmm. And, color me not shocked that you'll believe Goldberg who's been called a liar by the families Attorney, and she's certainly not the only one. Yeah, you "claim" to be a victim of insults which is absolutely laughable. You're the KING of Insults. Sheesh. That's all you do. Sheesh, again. Oh poor Ryan, I didn't attack you a put of nowhere. Get a grip. I merely called you out on posting an article without first seeing if there would be a response or not. That's on you. Get over it. What, you can dish it out, but you can't take it? Wow. I never said I was a victim. I said that you continually attack posters period. Bad try. I think I personally have an army of supporters? Ha!!! Not even close, but what I do know is that there are quite a few on here who let you know how condescending, egotistical, narcissistic and belligerent you can be a lot of times. That's a fact. You don't care, and that's a fact. Your prerogative. This is one thing I've figured out. You say, this is just an Internet board, but it really shouldn't give you the free rein to be s**tty to people, but that's how you feel, and perform. Pitiful. So...you think Goldberg made it up? To do what, exactly? Manipulate the election? If you actually read the article, the Guillen excerpt was a smaller piece of a much larger story, identifying the patterns and long-standing behaviors Trump has displayed towards members of the military. The only people actually refuting the story are Guillen's sister, her attorney and Trump staffers. Hardly a revelation, a circumstantial refutation...not a smoking gun. I post things I find interesting, when I find them. If you can't deal with that, then maybe you should move on, instead of misrepresenting realities like you're apt to do. I'll refer you again back to the mountainous evidence we have of similar, nearly identical behavior...something you still won't address. That fact alone invalidates the rest of your argument. Until you're ready to tackle that, you're going to get what you get. You somehow don't get the fact I believe Goldberg because he has multiple sources that were in....the....room.....and one of those has already come forward confirming the other part of the story. And spare me the whole being "s#!++y" to people argument: I have regular interactions here with 99% of people that I have no qualms with. Your attacks make that impossible. All you had to do in this instance was post the link to your article, but instead you chose to post a diatribe of insults and falsehoods. I'm going to respond, you choose the path. |
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Oct 23, 2024 13:09:07 GMT -8
Fred Eychaner 27 million, Michael Bloomberg 19 million, Reid Hoffman 11.6 million, what a HUGE, HUGE waste of money on Harris. Kammie has tanked. She is trailing Trump by 23.3 points in betting odds.This is nothing short comical and embarrassing for the democrat party. Future Forward is being rejected as a massive step backwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 23, 2024 13:19:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 23, 2024 13:25:34 GMT -8
Ha!!! You decided to lazily throw out an article that ended getting refuted by the sister, family and their Attorney. Par for the course. Not shocked, again. You also don't address the suspicion of why it came it now, four years after. Hmmmm. And, color me not shocked that you'll believe Goldberg who's been called a liar by the families Attorney, and she's certainly not the only one. Yeah, you "claim" to be a victim of insults which is absolutely laughable. You're the KING of Insults. Sheesh. That's all you do. Sheesh, again. Oh poor Ryan, I didn't attack you a put of nowhere. Get a grip. I merely called you out on posting an article without first seeing if there would be a response or not. That's on you. Get over it. What, you can dish it out, but you can't take it? Wow. I never said I was a victim. I said that you continually attack posters period. Bad try. I think I personally have an army of supporters? Ha!!! Not even close, but what I do know is that there are quite a few on here who let you know how condescending, egotistical, narcissistic and belligerent you can be a lot of times. That's a fact. You don't care, and that's a fact. Your prerogative. This is one thing I've figured out. You say, this is just an Internet board, but it really shouldn't give you the free rein to be s**tty to people, but that's how you feel, and perform. Pitiful. So...you think Goldberg made it up? To do what, exactly? Manipulate the election? If you actually read the article, the Guillen excerpt was a smaller piece of a much larger story, identifying the patterns and long-standing behaviors Trump has displayed towards members of the military. The only people actually refuting the story are Guillen's sister, her attorney and Trump staffers. Hardly a revelation, a circumstantial refutation...not a smoking gun. I post things I find interesting, when I find them. If you can't deal with that, then maybe you should move on, instead of misrepresenting realities like you're apt to do. I'll refer you again back to the mountainous evidence we have of similar, nearly identical behavior...something you still won't address. That fact alone invalidates the rest of your argument. Until you're ready to tackle that, you're going to get what you get. You somehow don't get the fact I believe Goldberg because he has multiple sources that were in....the....room.....and one of those has already come forward confirming the other part of the story. And spare me the whole being "s#!++y" to people argument: I have regular interactions here with 99% of people that I have no qualms with. Your attacks make that impossible. All you had to do in this instance was post the link to your article, but instead you chose to post a diatribe of insults and falsehoods. I'm going to respond, you choose the path. When it comes to Trump, you don't post what's interesting, you post what's the most derogatory towards him, period. That's your prerogative. I don't know if he made it up, but you have an Attorney, a family, and others calling him a liar. So there's that. You're thinking you act civilly to 99 percent of posters on here? I'm sorry to say, not even close, unfortunately. Why don't you practice what you preach, and not post a diatribe of insults, condescending remarks and narcissistic comments. In my initial post I said, "Right back atcha" and for a reason, since you post insults to people right out of the gate for their opinion. Practice what you preach from the post of yours that I'm responding to. I won't count it, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 23, 2024 13:38:49 GMT -8
So...you think Goldberg made it up? To do what, exactly? Manipulate the election? If you actually read the article, the Guillen excerpt was a smaller piece of a much larger story, identifying the patterns and long-standing behaviors Trump has displayed towards members of the military. The only people actually refuting the story are Guillen's sister, her attorney and Trump staffers. Hardly a revelation, a circumstantial refutation...not a smoking gun. I post things I find interesting, when I find them. If you can't deal with that, then maybe you should move on, instead of misrepresenting realities like you're apt to do. I'll refer you again back to the mountainous evidence we have of similar, nearly identical behavior...something you still won't address. That fact alone invalidates the rest of your argument. Until you're ready to tackle that, you're going to get what you get. You somehow don't get the fact I believe Goldberg because he has multiple sources that were in....the....room.....and one of those has already come forward confirming the other part of the story. And spare me the whole being "s#!++y" to people argument: I have regular interactions here with 99% of people that I have no qualms with. Your attacks make that impossible. All you had to do in this instance was post the link to your article, but instead you chose to post a diatribe of insults and falsehoods. I'm going to respond, you choose the path. When it comes to Trump, you don't post what's interesting, you post what's the most derogatory towards him, period. That's your prerogative. I don't know if he made it up, but you have an Attorney, a family, and others calling him a liar. So there's that. Why don't you practice what you preach, and not post a diatribe of insults, condescending remarks and narcissistic comments. In my initial post I said, "Right back atcha" and for a reason, since you post insults to people right out of the gate for their opinion. Practice what you preach from the post of yours that I'm responding to. I won't count it, that's for sure. It's relevant. Call it what you want. Maybe come to grips with the idea that only one of the candidates is espousing Hitler to the point of obsession, degrading fallen service members with alarming regularity, posing for fake photo ops and generally displaying abhorrent behavior across the board. If Harris were doing the same thing, I'd call her out, too. But she's, you know, not. You continue misrepresenting the statements in the article. The "family" isn't quoted anywhere, it's all attributed to Mayra Guillen. That means absolutely nothing, since we've ascertained she wasn't in the room. I trust the initial reporting for a myriad of reasons...and it doesn't require a PhD to figure them out. You're not being "fair" in this instance, you're just shielding accountability for Trump. I'm only responding to you. If you stopped, I would stop. But you have a stubborn habit of refusing to take responsibility for doing that and we get dragged back down into the mud. If you're going to call me pitiful, a narcissist, an egotist...I'm not going to just take that. It's not about posting an opinion....and that shows me how little you truly understand. Can you finally address the likelihood that the story is true based on the evidence we have of Trump doing similar things across the last two decades? |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 23, 2024 13:50:56 GMT -8
When it comes to Trump, you don't post what's interesting, you post what's the most derogatory towards him, period. That's your prerogative. I don't know if he made it up, but you have an Attorney, a family, and others calling him a liar. So there's that. Why don't you practice what you preach, and not post a diatribe of insults, condescending remarks and narcissistic comments. In my initial post I said, "Right back atcha" and for a reason, since you post insults to people right out of the gate for their opinion. Practice what you preach from the post of yours that I'm responding to. I won't count it, that's for sure. It's relevant. Call it what you want. Maybe come to grips with the idea that only one of the candidates is espousing Hitler to the point of obsession, degrading fallen service members with alarming regularity, posing for fake photo ops and generally displaying abhorrent behavior across the board. If Harris were doing the same thing, I'd call her out, too. But she's, you know, not. You continue misrepresenting the statements in the article. The "family" isn't quoted anywhere, it's all attributed to Mayra Guillen. That means absolutely nothing, since we've ascertained she wasn't in the room. I trust the initial reporting for a myriad of reasons...and it doesn't require a PhD to figure them out. You're not being "fair" in this instance, you're just shielding accountability for Trump. I'm only responding to you. If you stopped, I would stop. But you have a stubborn habit of refusing to take responsibility for doing that and we get dragged back down into the mud. If you're going to call me pitiful, a narcissist, an egotist...I'm not going to just take that. It's not about posting an opinion....and that shows me how little you truly understand. Can you finally address the likelihood that the story is true based on the evidence we have of Trump doing similar things across the last two decades? In my last post, I said that I don't know if Goldberg is lying, or not. All I know is that the sister doesn't think it's true, and more importantly the Attorney who had a conversation with Goldberg says that he is lying, and misrepresenting what she told him. What do you think about that? It raises questions to his credibility, doesn't it? It's very clear that Goldberg is no Trump fan, evidence by him throwing it out there just days before an election and what he's said about him in the past. I would also be standing up for Biden or Harris if someone wrote an article saying that one of them said that it doesn't take $60,000.00 to bury a Mexican. That's disgusting and prompted me to see if there was a rebuttal and I found one from the sister of the deceased and the Attorney. Also, I try not to post an article of that nature in particular until I've heard a rebuttal, because it can come back to bite you in the arse. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 23, 2024 14:18:15 GMT -8
It's relevant. Call it what you want. Maybe come to grips with the idea that only one of the candidates is espousing Hitler to the point of obsession, degrading fallen service members with alarming regularity, posing for fake photo ops and generally displaying abhorrent behavior across the board. If Harris were doing the same thing, I'd call her out, too. But she's, you know, not. You continue misrepresenting the statements in the article. The "family" isn't quoted anywhere, it's all attributed to Mayra Guillen. That means absolutely nothing, since we've ascertained she wasn't in the room. I trust the initial reporting for a myriad of reasons...and it doesn't require a PhD to figure them out. You're not being "fair" in this instance, you're just shielding accountability for Trump. I'm only responding to you. If you stopped, I would stop. But you have a stubborn habit of refusing to take responsibility for doing that and we get dragged back down into the mud. If you're going to call me pitiful, a narcissist, an egotist...I'm not going to just take that. It's not about posting an opinion....and that shows me how little you truly understand. Can you finally address the likelihood that the story is true based on the evidence we have of Trump doing similar things across the last two decades? In my last post, I said that I don't know if Goldberg is lying, or not. All I know is that the sister doesn't think it's true, and more importantly the Attorney who had a conversation with Goldberg says that he is lying, and misrepresenting what she told him. What do you think about that? It raises questions to his credibility, doesn't it? It's very clear that Goldberg is no Trump fan, evidence by him throwing it out there just days before an election and what he's said about him in the past. I would also be standing up for Biden or Harris if someone wrote an article saying that one of them said that it doesn't take $60,000.00 to bury a Mexican. That's disgusting and prompted me to see if there was a rebuttal and I found one from the sister of the deceased and the Attorney. Also, I try not to post an article of that nature in particular until I've heard a rebuttal, because it can come back to bite you in the arse. I'm aware of your stance. The bar is exponentially higher on my end for a refutation, a bolded statement from an attorney doesn't move the needle for me at all, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't think it does anything to undermine his credibility. Khawam admitted no money was ever sent. She posed for pictures in the Oval Office. The reality is Trump did essentially nothing for the family other than stage a media appearance, offer some platitudes and then moved on. You hardly post anything that's sourced, so the last part really doesn't mean anything to me. Again, you won't address the myriad of evidence that coincides with this behavior. When you're willing to do that, I'll be here. |
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Oct 23, 2024 15:20:42 GMT -8
So what, your girl Kammie is toast. And it is all on democrats putting a cackling moron out there as a candidate. Should have had an open convention like Drunken Pelosi wanted. Several could have trounced Trump. The thread is who will win? And it is not going to be Kammie. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 23, 2024 16:10:23 GMT -8
So what, your girl Kammie is toast. And it is all on democrats putting a cackling moron out there as a candidate. Should have had an open convention like Drunken Pelosi wanted. Several could have trounced Trump. The thread is who will win? And it is not going to be Kammie. Repeating the same things doesn't make them true. A person touting betting odds not understanding how markets move is pretty funny, though. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 23, 2024 16:54:59 GMT -8
Republicans keep lying and making $#!+ up. No honor or integrity in the Republican Party in 2024. They can't campaign on their strengths, because they have so few strengths at this point. They have to spread lies instead to try and tear down their opponents.
Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by North County Aztec on Oct 23, 2024 17:26:06 GMT -8
Republicans keep lying and making $#!+ up. No honor or integrity in the Republican Party in 2024. They can't campaign on their strengths, because they have so few strengths at this point. They have to spread lies instead to try and tear down their opponents. Pathetic. But they will win. And that's on democrats for putting Kammie on the ballot. It is almost like they left wants to be defeated. There were plenty that could beat Trump if the democrats had listened to Pelois and had a honest open convention. But they are ruled by big donors so the little people don't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 23, 2024 17:55:19 GMT -8
Republicans keep lying and making $#!+ up. No honor or integrity in the Republican Party in 2024. They can't campaign on their strengths, because they have so few strengths at this point. They have to spread lies instead to try and tear down their opponents. Pathetic. But they will win. And that's on democrats for putting Kammie on the ballot. It is almost like they left wants to be defeated. There were plenty that could beat Trump if the democrats had listened to Pelois and had a honest open convention. But they are ruled by big donors so the little people don't matter. The money already donated to the Biden/Harris campaign could legally be used by the Harris/Walz ticket, but not any other. They literally would have had to start over from scratch with fund raising, which would have led to a sure loss. Harris has a good chance to win. This thing is 50/50. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 24, 2024 5:21:24 GMT -8
Just for the fun of it, I'm going to track two polls starting today and see how the odds from today going forward end up being on the day before, and on election morning.
I'm going to use the Rasmussen Poll and Marquette poll, since I believe that they were used before on here.
I know there's the margin of error factor, but I'm just putting the numbers out there.
Rasmussen:
Trump 49 percent
Harris 46 percent
Marquette:
Harris 48
Trump 47
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 24, 2024 8:14:43 GMT -8
Just for the fun of it, I'm going to track two polls starting today and see how the odds from today going forward end up being on the day before, and on election morning. I'm going to use the Rasmussen Poll and Marquette poll, since I believe that they were used before on here. I know there's the margin of error factor, but I'm just putting the numbers out there. Rasmussen: Trump 49 percent Harris 46 percent Marquette: Harris 48 Trump 47 What's the point? |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 24, 2024 8:18:31 GMT -8
Just for the fun of it, I'm going to track two polls starting today and see how the odds from today going forward end up being on the day before, and on election morning. I'm going to use the Rasmussen Poll and Marquette poll, since I believe that they were used before on here. I know there's the margin of error factor, but I'm just putting the numbers out there. Rasmussen: Trump 49 percent Harris 46 percent Marquette: Harris 48 Trump 47 What's the point? Did you read the first 6 words of my post? That will give you your answer. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 24, 2024 8:27:41 GMT -8
Did you read the first 6 words of my post? That will give you your answer. There's only one more poll coming from Marquette, so you're unlikely to learn anything of value. Rasmussen is never going to be an indicator, either, it's the largest slanted Republican poll that exists. Have at it, I guess. You're better off tracking every poll. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 24, 2024 8:39:44 GMT -8
Did you read the first 6 words of my post? That will give you your answer. There's only one more poll coming from Marquette, so you're unlikely to learn anything of value. Rasmussen is never going to be an indicator, either, it's the largest slanted Republican poll that exists. Have at it, I guess. You're better off tracking every poll. Ok, I'll look into what you're saying and adjust accordingly. Maybe there's one that gives the average of all polls. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 24, 2024 8:45:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 24, 2024 8:57:41 GMT -8
I had just looked at that one. It's a close race since polls are almost divided equally between the two with Trump seeming to be in the lead in more polls at the moment. In the article below, the betting odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. Question. Since you know more about betting than I do, and I learned from you that casinos want people to bet both ways so they can win the juice, (I think I have that right) isn't the odds so overwhelmingly in favor of Trump them wanting to win the juice goes out the door? Doesn't that come into play only when the odds are close? I know things can, and probably will change, but I was shocked to see him with those odds. www.app.com/story/news/politics/2024/10/24/election-betting-odds-harris-trump-538-polls-real-clear-politics-oct-23/75000655007/ |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 24, 2024 9:07:38 GMT -8
I had just looked at that one. It's a close race since polls are almost divided equally between the two with Trump seeming to be in the lead in more polls at the moment. In the article below, the betting odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. Question. Since you know more about betting than I do, and I learned from you that casinos want people to bet both ways so they can win the juice, (I think I have that right) isn't the odds so overwhelmingly in favor of Trump them wanting to win the juice goes out the door? Doesn't that come into play only when the odds are close? I know things can, and probably will change, but I was shocked to see him with those odds. www.app.com/story/news/politics/2024/10/24/election-betting-odds-harris-trump-538-polls-real-clear-politics-oct-23/75000655007/There's always going to be juice/vig associated with any wager. All the odds are saying is there's a x% chance of someone winning. Even in current scenarios, Harris wins better than one out of three times. Bettors overwhelmingly lean Republican traditionally, so it's not really a surprise to see movement towards the Trump side. It's less surprising when you see that the market is being manipulated by heavy money whales that are placing massive wagers on exchanges. That will skew odds very quickly if you dump in millions in short order on one side. |
|
