I have £500 on trump at 6.0. Can't wait to post my betting slip on facebook come morning of Nov 9.

Quote: (10-19-2016 09:32 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Wallace, there is no social security "trust fund" - it is a transfer payment scheme that pays out what is paid in each day. No big saved pile of money - this is a fucking lie that needs to die.

Quote: (10-19-2016 09:33 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

sHE TALKS ABOUT THE sOCIAL sECURITY "tRUST fUND"... THERE IS NO TRUST FUND IT IS A PONZI SCHEME.

I don't want to derail, this is one of my bugbears. "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" is a Wall Street propaganda theme to support an eventual change from a defined-benefit plan based on a single security (US debt instruments) to a defined-contribution plan based on diversified securities (stocks, bonds, ETFs and mutual funds, with trading commissions paid to who?). They have already done this with military retirement, to the apparent eventual detriment of career military personnel who will get lower retirement payments.

It is an accounting device, true, but FICA contributions do go into an account of US securities that are earmarked for SS payment. These securities are (or should be) no different than any US t-notes and t-bills bought by Saudi Arabia, China, the Federal Reserve, private banks or anyone else. US debt is still seen as one of the safest investments in the market. SS buying US debt is no different than the Federal Reserve buying US debt - numbers on computers.

There are some people who would like to default on the debt owed to the American worker (SS) while not defaulting on other US debt instruments. That is a lot of what drives this theme.

A modest raising of the income levels subject to FICA withdrawal from $118,500 would keep SS healthy for a lot longer than 2030.

Trump has pledged to keep SS benefits as they are.

You could have a debate as to whether a defined-benefit government funded plan or defined-contribution plan based on Wall Street markets is better, but "SS is a Ponzi scheme" is misleading.

I suppose betting on Trump is nice.

Me? I would put 5k on Hillary.

If Trump wins then who cares about 5k? If Hillary wins then I need the extra cash for guns, ammunition, burner phones and maybe some iodine tablets.

Quote: (10-19-2016 09:49 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

Katrina Campins on the stream.

WB WB WB WB WB WB WB

Holy shit fuck arg

   

Quote: (10-20-2016 01:22 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

<snip>
You could have a debate as to whether a defined-benefit government funded plan or defined-contribution plan based on Wall Street markets is better, but "SS is a Ponzi scheme" is misleading.

Its not misleading at all, it is a ponzi scheme that is about 1/2-3/4 of the way to imploding.

A ponzi scheme is one that takes new investments to pay prior investors can we agree?

Which is exactly what SS does. It just hasn't reached the 1:1 ratio yet.

SS.gov beneficiary ratios

The link above tells us the following ratios of workers:beneficiaries:
1940 159.4
1945 41.9
1955 8.6
1965 4.0
1975 3.2
1985 3.3
1995 3.3
2005 3.3
2013 2.8

So we can see that there is still enough "skim" from new investors to pay the old ones off and keep a little kickback (which goes right into the general fund). Thats why they are desperate to pass amnesty and get millions of new citizens on the tax rolls to bring that number back up. Also the securities are not marketable debt instruments like another nation would purchase, they are "special-issue" strictly for the SSA. That is to say there is no "cash" in the SS Trust Fund, just more debt. Which in order to redeem, the US Treasury would have to issue a marketable debt instrument.

So to paint a picture of what Social Security really is:

Quote:Quote:

It's a slow day in some little town........
The sun is hot....the streets are deserted.
Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from back west is driving thru town.

He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the feed store.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her services on credit.
She, in a flash rushes to the motel and pays off her room bill with the motel owner.
The motel proprietor now places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money & leaves.

NOW,... no one produced anything...and no one earned anything...however the whole town is out of debt and is looking to the future with much optimism.

Quote: (10-19-2016 11:17 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

I noticed something fishy during the debate...as did others:

When Hilary mentioned the Florida attack, Trump should have mentioned this:

Quote: (10-19-2016 09:57 PM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  

One thing I kept an eye on was Clinton's face throughout the whole debate. It's not the face of someone who thinks they've got it in the bag.

For me, this is the

Careful observation, not flustered by the sound and the fury.

Quote: (10-19-2016 09:16 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

Trump is on record as being against Iraq, dumb Cunt.
He said he supported it once on Howard Stern in 2001... not since.

No he didn't, he said in reference to the Gulf War that if that was the Bush administration's goal, they should have finished the job the first time. It's an ambivalent condemnation of a fuckup that the Iraq war is, but a condemnation nonetheless.

Some Twitter excerpts.

Michael Tracey, liberal Vice reporter, and friend of Cernovich: "She finally came out and used the word "puppet." This is rank extremism and crackpot warmongering. HRC sounds like a total lunatic.

Reply: "According to Luntz focus group dials, that part where she whines about Russia was the worst part of the debate."

-----

Luntz, " Trump's top point was hitting $6 billion lost by Hillary's State Dept.

"If he spent the whole election doing this, he'd have it wrapped up"

Prediction:

Clinton will win, Trump will put big money behind investigation and discover irrefutable evidence that the election was rigged (or already have methods in place to identify rigging taking place) - then snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Clinton goes to jail, dies from pneumonia 6 months later.

Quote: (10-20-2016 02:04 AM)Adonis Wrote:  

Quote: (10-20-2016 01:22 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

<snip>
You could have a debate as to whether a defined-benefit government funded plan or defined-contribution plan based on Wall Street markets is better, but "SS is a Ponzi scheme" is misleading.

Its not misleading at all, it is a ponzi scheme that is about 1/2-3/4 of the way to imploding.

A ponzi scheme is one that takes new investments to pay prior investors can we agree?

Which is exactly what SS does. It just hasn't reached the 1:1 ratio yet.

SS.gov beneficiary ratios

The link above tells us the following ratios of workers:beneficiaries:
1940 159.4
1945 41.9
1955 8.6
1965 4.0
1975 3.2
1985 3.3
1995 3.3
2005 3.3
2013 2.8

So we can see that there is still enough "skim" from new investors to pay the old ones off and keep a little kickback (which goes right into the general fund). Thats why they are desperate to pass amnesty and get millions of new citizens on the tax rolls to bring that number back up. Also the securities are not marketable debt instruments like another nation would purchase, they are "special-issue" strictly for the SSA. That is to say there is no "cash" in the SS Trust Fund, just more debt. Which in order to redeem, the US Treasury would have to issue a marketable debt instrument.

So to paint a picture of what Social Security really is:

Quote:Quote:

It's a slow day in some little town........
The sun is hot....the streets are deserted.
Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist from back west is driving thru town.

He stops at the motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
As soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the feed store.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her services on credit.
She, in a flash rushes to the motel and pays off her room bill with the motel owner.
The motel proprietor now places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money & leaves.

NOW,... no one produced anything...and no one earned anything...however the whole town is out of debt and is looking to the future with much optimism.

I made a whole other thread about this issue, will answer you there: thread-58898.html

Personal view on this one: Trump was playing for persuasion memes, and probably got a good one, when he said Clinton was nasty.

Yes, the Propaganda Ministry of the Democrats will be screaming "NASTY WOMAN! NASTY WOMAN!" all over the airwaves tomorrow ... but it's a nice, descriptive tag for Clinton. and it'll be an own-goal for the MSM if they do push the meme. Nasty. Even among the low-pants crowd 'nasty' doesn't have a good connotation: it's associated with perversion or at best with willingness to be a slut.

Nobody considers Clinton a sexual being (especially since Cigar Bill doesn't and hasn't throughout their marriage ... bar a maximum of one occasion), so nobody is going to use that descriptor to associate her with vitality, with energy. You're then left with the other connotations for nasty: old, conniving, sly, backstabbing, vindictive ... mean. And Clinton, with her problem of resting bitchface and insincere smiling, fits that bill. People might say "Yeah, that was mean of Trump to call Clinton nasty", but I think a good fraction of them will be thinking "...but he's right, she's a nasty piece of work."

^ Very true. The more they parrot it the more it will stick.

America will be thinking about Hillary the way they think about their mothers-in-law.

Quote: (10-20-2016 03:01 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

Prediction:

Clinton will win, Trump will put big money behind investigation and discover irrefutable evidence that the election was rigged (or already have methods in place to identify rigging taking place) - then snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Clinton goes to jail, dies from pneumonia 6 months later.

It would be interesting to see how betting companies handled this. I have to wonder if the trigger for a payout is a supposed victory or an actual inauguration.

My betting slip says "Donald Trump becomes president of USA", so I am very sure that it refers to inauguration. Just winning the election is subject to interpretation (see Bush v. Gore).

Very interesting: The Republicans and Independants responded positively to Trump's "Will you accept the election result" response on the dial test.

Quote: (10-20-2016 03:01 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

Prediction:

Clinton will win, Trump will put big money behind investigation and discover irrefutable evidence that the election was rigged (or already have methods in place to identify rigging taking place) - then snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Clinton goes to jail, dies from pneumonia 6 months later.

...Clinton goes to prison, creates Lesbian Nation jail-gang, escapes by (lesbian) tunnel, flees to Mexico, teams up with El Chapo (whose extraditing-judge by the way was conveniently killed just today), jumps the Trump wall, invades Texas, is defeated (again) by Trump's 2d amendment people, goes to jail, creates new prison gang, etc etc... The woman, win or lose, will not go away easily!

Quote: (10-20-2016 02:03 AM)Penta Sahi Wrote:  

Quote: (10-19-2016 09:49 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

Katrina Campins on the stream.

WB WB WB WB WB WB WB

Holy shit fuck arg

If you google "Katrina Campins Tommy Hilfiger" you can see the whole titty

Cernovich on Twitter: "Good test of who is clueless - thinking Trump's answer re: accepting election result hurts him. Anyone saying that is discredited."

Reply, "once again trump controls the narrative. Elections rigged. Discuss."

Reply, "He should hold a surprise presser tomorrow morning highlighting #veritas voter fraud and clarifying his position. Double win."

Reply, "Trump will own the news cycle. As more fraud is discovered and veritas videos continue to go viral, he'll gain votes!"

Cernovich, "Yep. Lol at people not realizing this by now. His answer draws ATTENTION to the voting fraud videos!"

-------

I also asked a friend of mine (blue collar Trump voter) and one of my students whether they heard of the Project Veritas videos. Both said no.

I'm going to ask you a question whose answer will be a percentage. So a number between zero and a hundred. Read the question and answer in your head as quickly as possible.

Ready?





What percentage of Undecided non-RVF members have watched the Project Veritas videos?











I think the correct answer is less than one percent.

Did you choose a much higher number? If you did, let me try to convince you. Do you think many non-RVF members follow the election on Twitter while being connected to guys like Cernovich? You know that the Project Veritas videos were reported on Hannity, but he's only popular with Trump supporters. Do you really think Undecideds are watching Hannity?

So, less than one percent of Undecideds have watched, and Luntz has consistently shown the Undecideds react most strongly in favor of Trump when he talks about holding Hillary accountable, especially with new information. (In Debate 2, Trump's best moment by far was when he floated the "special prosecutor" idea. In Debate 3, it was when he mentioned the six billion dollars lost by the State Department.)

Fam, you have to tell everyone you know, everyone on Facebook, and everyone of your neighbors about these videos. If you don't want to put a lot of time into doing this, you don't have to! Just a link on Facebook or a note placed on someone's hand is enough.

If you do want to spend a lot of time on it, there are only a few strategies. When showing it to strong Hillary voters, dramatically overplay how many people have seen it, and tell them that this will surely sink Clinton's campaign. To Stein voters, tell them to show all of their friends. And to NeverTrump, ask them whether they're ready to come home OR whether Trump has done anything as horrible as what's on the Veritas videos.

Simple as that.

In honour of Clinton's new descriptor, vintage rare nasty girls.

This was the song playing during the stripclub scene in Beverly Hills Cop. Written by Prince.

I will go back and read all of y'alls responses tomorrow. Hopefully I feel different. But these are a couple quick thoughts of my own gut.

1. Anybody on the fence will side with Hillary if they've been living in a hole without Internet the last couple weeks. Probably old people who would vote democrat anyway.

2. It appears that DJT was ok with just focusing on the issues. Pretty vanilla, going through the motions. Debate 2 was when the gloves came off to apply the sleeper hold. I have to assume this was the strategy. No news from the debate, all focus on the leaks and Veritas projects.

3. I hope my next statement comes off right, but here goes: I know the MSM is in on it. Wallace is a schmuck. But if you are going to bring up the accusations against Trump, and make him defend them as if they were fact, it is an OUTRIGHT MOTHERFUCKING DISGRACE to not put Hillary on the spot to answer for the VIRAL discussion going on amongst the citizens of this country. Those that are in the dark deserve an explanation if you want to be a leader here.

I loved DJTs response to the if you lose question. Cernovich is right though... We need mass coverage of every polling location. But I looked at just Dallas county, there's gotta be 1000 places to be. This needed to be organized way earlier. That smug bitch Clinton knows she's got a method to get it done. Fucking bullshit snarky responses and dismissive laughing teeth.

We need a landslide. I think we may have that, but if you're the religious kind- Phil 4:13 Amen and God bless us all in the coming days.

Wow...

The media spin is so fucking predictable and organized, Joseph Goebbels would be impressed.

Even the "Conservative" paper in my city is spewing garbage about how "Trump Blew It" and "Vintage Hillary Clinton Won".

"Vintage Hillary"? Really? Can her most die hard sycophant name ONE good thing she's EVER done? ONE? "Vintage"?

If it wasn't for the sports section, I basically wouldn't read any papers; looks like I'll be skipping that too. Fuck these delusional cucks.

The whole thing is a coordinated effort to delegitimize The Don's pending victory.

For each of these debates the following seems to happen for me:
- These rvf threads report a major win or minor loss for first one.
- I search "presidential debate news" on google
- All returns either have a title like "Hillary reportedly wins debate", or the MSM article (CNN etc) is comically biased against Trump.
- I think perhaps Putin and his ilk are right in their treatment of journalists. 99% human slime. As a libertarian I would never dream of freedom of the press being abridged. But I'm not saying I wouldn't silently and comfortably watch with a box of popcorn as things happened. I don't consider these political agents "journalists" anymore than I consider Paul Ryan a "conservative".