Gambling on the 2012 Elections

[Pens1566]

Just finishing sorting it out, which is the purpose of this thread. I know you know how to read, so I suggest you start with post 1 when you post in a thread, helps you figure out what is going on and prevents you from posting stupid things like this.

Uh, it was spot on.

When nothing else is left, weasel, deflect and distort. It's what you're best at.

 

[glenn1]

Now, that actualy sounds like a fun bet.

OK, I'll take the side that says the GOP takes control of the Senate.

p.s., I would hate to cheer for Army when I know that Navy is going to win.

You're on; see you in December either way.

 

[a777pilot]

You're on; see you in December either way.

0800, Saturday, 1 SEP, it's Navy vs. Notre Dame (Dublin, Ireland) on CBS.

You can see how good Navy is.........I hope.

 

[1prophet]

I personally see Obama by a small margin.

1-2 years into his second term, things don't get better, they get worse (At this point neither party will fix it)

Some small group will finally go off the deep end, and long story short. Joe Biden is president.

You are naive if you think anything like that can happen without the blessing of the powers that be, and that small group as you like to call it would conveniently be made the guilty party.

 

[jackstar7]

I'll bet a Romney supporter that Obama wins. And if the President retains his position, I'd like to see a pic of the loser wearing this shirt:

 

[cybrsage]

Uh, it was spot on.

Now you are lying.

 

[cybrsage]

Ah, side-stepping the issue. A lot of us predicted that you would weasel out of your bet in this exact way.

What would you call someone who knows something to be true but is too foolish to believe what he alreadys knows is true? Most people call him a fool. You already knew this was an obvious out and yet you are too foolish to believe what you already know is true. What should you call yourself?

Yes by leaving the contest Santorum was in fact admitting that he would not amass enough electoral votes to win, and that by staying in the race despite that, he would lose.

Exactly, so he left the race and did not lose. Quitters never win, but they never lose either.

 

[cybrsage]

In fairness, while I agree he was the loser based on the spirit of the bet, he made it clear, in his distinctive way, that he was going to weasel out of this at the time the bet was made. I certainly imagine Santorum would agree that he "lost" the nomination race, in any event.

By the definitoin of losing people here are trying to use, that mean you, Don Vito, lost the nomination as well. Alzan lost the nomination, Perknose lose the nomination, etc.

Would you say you lost the nomination, since you were not trying to get it when the official voting happened? If not, then you have to also say Santorium also did not lose the nomination for the same reason.

 

[Pens1566]

Now you are lying.

Oh the irony.

 

[cybrsage]

Oh the irony.

You are still claiming the OP does not say this:

This is started so Don and Cybr can get their bet sorted out. All others are obviously welcome to participate.

When you claim the reason this thread was started was for anything other than so Don and Cybr can get their bet sorted out, you are lying. At first, you could have been simply wrong, but when shown the truth and you still make the same claim, you are not wrong but a liar.

The purposeful spread of misinformation is not allowed here, liar.

 

[Screech]

Exactly, so he left the race and did not lose. Quitters never win, but they never lose either.

Because I like arguing with trolls during my lunch break:

Verb
forfeit (third-person singular simple present forfeits, present participle forfeiting, simple past and past participle forfeited)
1. To suffer the loss of something by wrongdoing or non-compliance
He forfeited his last chance of an early release from jail by repeatedly attacking another inmate.
2. To lose a contest, game, match, or other form of competition by voluntary withdrawal, by failing to attend or participate, or by violation of the rules
Because only nine players were present, the football team was forced to forfeit the game.

I love the sound of a cybrtroll squiriming out of a bet and criticizing others for betting, lol.

I hope someone takes your bet, DVC! I am happy to make the same one with someone as time posting here is essentially time wasted, so if I lose, I don't post here, and if I win, some troll doesn't post here -- not too bad odds, really.

 

[cybrsage]

Unsourced links are useless and simply trolling (see, I can misuse the word too, you like that?).

 

[Screech]

Ah, I did forget to link the source. It is obviously from a dictionary.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forfeit

I assume your criticism of a lack of such a link is a result of having no reply to the fact that forfeiture is indeed a manner of loss, per the definition of the word, and as such, Santorum did indeed lose? Equivalently, if I played a game of tennis (a match of 5 sets, for example), lost the first set, and then decided to quit, I would have certainly lost -- as did Santorum, analogously.

 

[alzan]

What would you call someone who knows something to be true but is too foolish to believe what he alreadys knows is true? Most people call him a fool. You already knew this was an obvious out and yet you are too foolish to believe what you already know is true. What should you call yourself?




Exactly, so he left the race and did not lose. Quitters never win, but they never lose either.

I call myself an honest person who doesn't weasel out of bets I make. Were I to have made the same bet as you under the same conditions, I would have stipulated to the other party that quitting the contest is the same as losing said contest. If the other party declined to bet based on that then so be it.

You on the other hand are not clear about the conditions of the wager so that you may weasel out. It's okay, we've come to expect that of you.

 

[cybrsage]

This is all best discussed here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2225676&page=4

No sense in continuing to derail this thread with it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

By the definitoin of losing people here are trying to use, that mean you, Don Vito, lost the nomination as well. Alzan lost the nomination, Perknose lose the nomination, etc.

Would you say you lost the nomination, since you were not trying to get it when the official voting happened? If not, then you have to also say Santorium also did not lose the nomination for the same reason.

I'd say I didn't lose it because I:

a) Never registered with my state Secretary of State as a candidate.

b) Never registered with the FEC as a candidate.

c) Never appointed a campaign manager.

d) Never selected a campaign staff.

e) Never publicly announced my candidacy.

f) Never held any press conferences in which I stated I was running.

g) Never participated in any debates as a candidate.

h) Never predicted I would serve as our next President.

i) Never purchased a single print, television or radio advertisement in connection with a campaign.

j) Never spent a dime, much less millions of dollars, on a campaign.

My conduct on those key issues is quite different from Mr. Santorum's, since he did all of the above. Moreover, he was absolutely "trying to get it when the official voting happened," since he ran in a host of state primaries and caucuses in which, had he won them, would have given him pledged delegates who, in sufficient number, would have put him in a position to be nominated. He withdrew not because he wasn't interested in being the nominee but because he had no chance to win.

I take it what you're saying is, nobody can "lose" the race to be a party nominee unless they continue in the race to the convention, regardless of what the pledged delegate race looks like. You know full well what a stupid proposition that is. You know you're being punctilious, which is true. You also think you're being clever, which is false.

 

[cybrsage]

This is all best discussed here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthre...2225676&page=4

No sense in continuing to derail this thread with it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Don Vito Corleone, your bet is reasonable, interesting and, requires accountability for ones beliefs. Unfortunately, the people you're betting against only believe in lulz.

 

[werepossum]

I'll bet a Romney supporter that Obama wins. And if the President retains his position, I'd like to see a pic of the loser wearing this shirt:

Not gonna bet because (1) I don't bet on things I don't control and (2) I still think Obama is most likely to win, but I would totally wear that shirt. It is awesome.

And Santorum totally lost. If you start a race and you are losing, you cannot avoid losing by pretending to no longer run the race. The only exception would be if Santorum had been competitive, but had dropped out because a bus hit his child or his wife swallowed a puppy and he had to be with them.

 

[Pens1566]

You are still claiming the OP does not say this:



When you claim the reason this thread was started was for anything other than so Don and Cybr can get their bet sorted out, you are lying. At first, you could have been simply wrong, but when shown the truth and you still make the same claim, you are not wrong but a liar.

The purposeful spread of misinformation is not allowed here, liar.

Hey captain dipshit, what part of the following don't you understand in relation to the OP? Your quoted post has zero to do with it. Shit or get off the pot.

You are still doubling down on your statements about people who take the bus are failures. And you got the city wrong.

Failure is what you enjoy, though, so I am happy you are doing what you love.

Please don't derail the thread intentionally with your usual off topic bullshit. Either take DVCs bet, or get the hell out of the thread.

Oh, and my offer stands as well. Same terms as DVC.

Everyone in P&N lols at the above bolded, btw. As you're the biggest (by far) example of that behavior in this cess pool of a forum.

I'm not quite sure how it is that the mods haven't perma-banned your useless ass yet(again that is).

 

[leper84]

I bet $1000 we're fucked either way if we don't elect third party.

 

[werepossum]

I bet $1000 we're fucked either way if we don't elect third party.

Huh, I'd bet $1000 we're fucked either way even if we elected a third party. Much as I like Gary Johnson, we're in a serious bind and there's no easy way out. Stimulus isn't going to work. Tax cuts aren't going to work. I don't see anything on the horizon that's going to do other than slowly get us back to our previous slow decline without a lot of short-term pain, and we don't like short term pain. (Well, except for that sexy spanky kind.)

I like libertarian philosophy on personal freedoms and I usually vote Libertarian, and I generally think we could do with a lot less regulation and a LOT less bureaucratic and Congressional empowerment to change the rules and pick winners and losers. But simply deregulating business and cutting government isn't going to get us back to our former glory either. We'd have to turn this country into a third world hell to be competitive with Red China and Mexico, not to mention Vietnam and Bangladesh. Not much point in being able to manufacture and export goods if we've got a crap standard of living and a polluted environment.

On the bright side, our decline into the dregs of global arbitrage comes with cheap electronics for as long as we can borrow the money to buy them.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This thread is a nice encapsulation of everything that is wrong with this forum (and why so many decent posters have simply stopped participating, even in the short time I've been here.)

 

[a777pilot]

Thank God I'm not a " decent poster ".

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Thank God I'm not a " decent poster ".

Put up or shut up!