What's more shocking.. Trump Losing Iowa or Bernie Tying Hillary?

Search
Status
Not open for further replies.

Active member
Handicapper
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
91,040
Tokens
I'm a Cruz guy but I would be shocked if Trump didn't win New Hampshire.

Iowa 2008: Huckabee
Iowa 2012: Santorum

New Hampshire 2008: McCain
New Hampshire 2012: Romney

Reminds me of an old axiom in politics...Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents.

No need to panic...yet.

I heard they might do away with the Iowa Caucus......Is that true?...Or they were thinking about it at 1 point...Maybe I head wrong.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
20,329
Tokens
Trump was always gunning for New Hampshire as he did not have as much ground teams there as resources were put to better use in New Hampshire. Iowa does not really matter much as history shows it is better to lose & win New Hampshire.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
52,424
Tokens
Joe what do you attribute the discrepancy in the betting markets and the actual results to?

Just not factoring in the organization advantages in the campaigns?

Also Trump should win NH since all those other guys polling at 5% will suck support from Cruz/Rubio. The longer the field is fragmented should favor him.

I just don't buy into the notion political betting markets are prediction markets, especially with very low limits.

Trump will win New Hampshire. Then it's game on in South Carolina.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
28,799
Tokens
Kind of ironic that Trump's biggest competition is an immigrant and a Latino...I guess he still has his birthers...

 

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
3,342
Tokens
Kind of ironic that Trump's biggest competition is an immigrant and a Latino...I guess he still has his birthers...
also ironic that the immigrant and Latino are both Republicans...and and the other sides candidates are much older and whiter. So much for diversity for the Dems
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
Cruz is my boy, and I like Rubio too, so I'm happy (I don't dislike Trump, he's third on my list)

Hillary is preordained, the election results prove the undercurrent against her are real


Rubio's surge and Clinton's problems are the story of the night for me
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
I think Rubio is the next president and he's the only republican candidate in the last few decades that doesn't make me sick.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,506
Tokens
Only one winner last night and it wasn't Cruz.

Rubio
 

hacheman@therx.com
Staff member
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
139,222
Tokens
I think Rubio is the next president and he's the only republican candidate in the last few decades that doesn't make me sick.

Ughhh vitterd cmon my friend.

Being in Florida I've heard plenty of Rubio & of all candidates he's the biggest idiot of all.

The least qualified of all to run this country by far...
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
40,880
Tokens
Ughhh vitterd cmon my friend.

Being in Florida I've heard plenty of Rubio & of all candidates he's the biggest idiot of all.

The least qualified of all to run this country by far...

He's about to get all the establishment money and he's the most normal out of the top 3 repub candidates. If you don't want Hillary.....Rubio is best shot you got and he's got a very legit chance to beat her.....I believe that he will.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2004
Messages
28,799
Tokens
Right now a lunatic who thinks the earth is a thousand years old and denies that climate change is real, actually looks like an attractive prospect when standing next to Donald Trump. What is the Republican party coming to?
 

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
41
Tokens
trump relies on passionate votes I dont think fellow americans will make sense voting on a clown like this one...I thought bush was the worse US president in recent memory but trump could beat his record (if given the chance)
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,000
Tokens
Right now a lunatic who thinks the earth is a thousand years old and denies that climate change is real, actually looks like an attractive prospect when standing next to Donald Trump. What is the Republican party coming to?

Complete lie.

#1. Young earth creationists believe that the earth is ~4,000 years old.
#2. Cruz has NEVER gone on record as being a young earth creationist.

The fact that he denies the man-made global warming scam is a great thing, unlike the maggot scam artists on the left.

[h=1]Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day[/h] 46568
161


<figure class="figurearticlefeatured">
Polar-Bear-Global-Warming-Warning-Oli-ScarffGetty-Images-640x480.jpg
Oli Scarff/Getty Images

</figure> by James Delingpole8 Aug 20157,422
[h=2]“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Sinclair.[/h]​
The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.
But there’s a subtle difference between these two industries — the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?
Well, it’s like this. When you go to, say, Charles Tyrwhitt to buy a nice, smart shirt, or Amazon to buy the box set of Game of Thrones, or Krazykrazysextoy.com to replace your girlfriend’s worn out rabbit, no one is holding a gun to your head. You are buying these things of your own free volition either for yourself or for someone you love. You have paid for them, out of your own money, because you have made the calculation that they will make your life that little bit better. Better than it would, say, if you’d kept the money in your bank account or spent it on something less desirable — a novelty dog poo ornament, say, or a handknitted sweater with Jimmy Savile’s face on it and “I HEART paedos” picked out in gold lamé lettering.
When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It’s already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure. Yet unlike your online shopping — which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry — you get precisely nothing in return.
No, it’s worse than that. You get less than nothing. You get stuff forced on you that you really don’t want: bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes looming on your horizon, keeping you awake, trashing your property values; fields of solar panels where they used to grow wheat or you used to walk your dog; prissy missives from your local council expecting you to be grateful for the fact that now you’ve got to separate your trash into seven different recycling bags rather than the previous five, and that they’re only going to collect your rubbish once a fortnight instead of once a week; teachers filling your kids’ heads with junk science propaganda; free parking slots for electric cars you don’t own but which you subsidise for richer friends who do; feel-bad nature documentaries about how it’s all your fault that this stuff “may” soon disappear; energy-saving lightbulbs that take your nocturnal home back to the kind of sepulchral gloom Western civilisation thought it had bade farewell to in the 1890s; the Prius, the car which recalls the style and comfort of the cars the fall of the Berlin Wall was supposed to have ended; yawning gaps where used to grow the woods which have been chopped down and chipped to create biomass for burning in power stations which used to run more cheaply and efficiently on coal…

Then there are the people who benefit financially from this $1.5 trillion climate change industry: the carbon traders; the dodgy academics; the vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; the environmental NGOs; the environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; the sustainability officers at every level of local government; the green advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; the PR companies that specialise in green awareness; Dale Vince….
These people do not deserve your money. Not a penny, a cent, or a sou of it.
Look, I don’t begrudge anyone the right to earn a living — just so long as they’re providing someone, somewhere with something they actually need. Not a single person working in the climate change industry fulfils this criterion. Not one. If you scrapped Michael Mann’s job tomorrow the world would not suffer the slightest loss and science would be all the better for it.
Sure, you might argue, there’s some kind of trickledown effect as the money we’re force to pay these shysters and bludgers and charlatans and scroungers via various taxes and tariffs feeds back into the economy. But you could make the same argument were these people paid the same amount of money by the government to dig holes in the ground and fill them up again — which would be a vastly preferable use of tax payer money because then these utterly useless parasites would be reminded every day how pointless the “work” they do actually is, whereas as things are, many of them suffer under the delusion that their green non-jobs are somehow virtuous and important.
In the headline I call the climate change industry a hoax. That’s because, on any objective level it is. I don’t mean that all the scientists and businesses and politicians promoting it are abject liars — just most of them, even if it means that in order to keep earning their living they have to be dishonest with themselves about something they know in their hearts not to be true.
Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry here:
..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.
That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,974
Messages
13,575,679
Members
100,889
Latest member
junkerb
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com