Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 245: Delecto the Funky Mormon Senator

(+) Yeah! (+)

Reg posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Man they really slipped up spending so much time monitoring marijuana and not monitoring vaping then

Vaping is literally owned by the big tobacco companies, isn't it?

Oh well then I retract this criticism
---

red sox 777 posted...

red13n posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It's more like why casinos put in a lot of efforts to stop card counters at blackjack grinding out an hourly expected profit of $50. That surveillance operation is going to have increased costs by way more than the money they lose to card counters. But if you don't have the countermeasures instead of having a few card counters making $50 an hour you are going to have many card counters playing high stakes and winning thousands of dollars an hour.

Casinos do not bat an eye if you are playing for $50 an hour. At that point you not losing money is a draw to make other players that are playing at higher stakes sit at the table and throw their money away.

I've never seen them act until players start putting black chips on the table.

You need to be playing $100+ a hand to be winning $50 an hour on average. The house edge on a $100 bet is like 19 cents for a good game.

no, that'd be a $100 max bet, not average/base bet. And just a basic hi-low system.

If your base is $100 and then you start pulling out $400+ bets with a winning expectation you could win significantly more.
---

red13n posted...

red sox 777 posted...

red13n posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It's more like why casinos put in a lot of efforts to stop card counters at blackjack grinding out an hourly expected profit of $50. That surveillance operation is going to have increased costs by way more than the money they lose to card counters. But if you don't have the countermeasures instead of having a few card counters making $50 an hour you are going to have many card counters playing high stakes and winning thousands of dollars an hour.

Casinos do not bat an eye if you are playing for $50 an hour. At that point you not losing money is a draw to make other players that are playing at higher stakes sit at the table and throw their money away.

I've never seen them act until players start putting black chips on the table.

You need to be playing $100+ a hand to be winning $50 an hour on average. The house edge on a $100 bet is like 19 cents for a good game.

no, that'd be a $100 max bet, not average/base bet. And just a basic hi-low system.

If your base is $100 and then you start pulling out $400+ bets with a winning expectation you could win significantly more.

Yes, my point is that this type of play is not really worth it for the casino to prevent. Especially as the appearance of refusing to play with winners may drive off other customers. The value is in the deterrent effect.
---

Reg posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Man they really slipped up spending so much time monitoring marijuana and not monitoring vaping then

Vaping is literally owned by the big tobacco companies, isn't it?

My new next door neighbors own a vape shop and the answer is not yet
---

Absolutely disgusting:
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1187531322232922112

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Absolutely disgusting:
https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/1187531322232922112

The guy responsible for covering up Iran-Contra? Doing something like this?

https://imgur.com/sohWhy9

https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs/status/1187313768226807808?s=21

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since when was it a crime to merely attempt murder?

---

Interesting opinion piece.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/24/opinions/syria-kurds-trump-withdrawal-kent/index.html

---

This might be a stupid question, but why exactly do you want trump to end up being right about things?
---

Attempted murder, now what is that really? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?

---

banananor posted...

This might be a stupid question, but why exactly do you want trump to end up being right about things?

You talking to me?

Why would anyone not want their president to be making the right decisions?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Interesting opinion piece.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/24/opinions/syria-kurds-trump-withdrawal-kent/index.html

Lets hope Russia doesn't benefit and we'll have to fight them later?

It is interesting only in how horrible an outlook this person has.

Also he says "Stay and fight" but they werent fighting, it was literally "stay and nobody fights" or "leave and watch our former allies get slaughtered".
---

red13n posted...

Lets hope Russia doesn't benefit and we'll have to fight them later?

It is interesting only in how horrible an outlook this person has.

Also he says "Stay and fight" but they werent fighting, it was literally "stay and nobody fights" or "leave and watch our former allies get slaughtered".

I disagree that is what he said, so it is interesting you got that out of the article.

He refers to the conflict between them that I referred to in my previous posts. That no matter when we left it was coming. Someone here said we should stay there til the end of time to prevent it. I obviously disagree on that.

It also refers to that we allied with the Kurds in this conflict not because they are our allies and provide much to the table with us but because we had a shared goal in a conflict. Once that shared goal went away, there wasn't much reasoning in our benefit to continue their in perpetuity.

---

That piece was typical of CNN - bombastic, boring, and missing the point. Withdrawing at this time was good to hurt Russia? Seriously?
---

Corrik7 posted...

red13n posted...

Lets hope Russia doesn't benefit and we'll have to fight them later?

It is interesting only in how horrible an outlook this person has.

Also he says "Stay and fight" but they werent fighting, it was literally "stay and nobody fights" or "leave and watch our former allies get slaughtered".

I disagree that is what he said, so it is interesting you got that out of the article.

He refers to the conflict between them that I referred to in my previous posts. That no matter when we left it was coming. Someone here said we should stay there til the end of time to prevent it. I obviously disagree on that.

It also refers to that we allied with the Kurds in this conflict not because they are our allies and provide much to the table with us but because we had a shared goal in a conflict. Once that shared goal went away, there wasn't much reasoning in our benefit to continue their in perpetuity.

A weak leader who lacks creativity like Hillary Clinton or John McCain would keep our army there until the end of time stalling an "inevitable" war. A great dealmaker like Donald Trump should be trying to build real peace. This idea that a war between Turkey and the Kurds, or between Iran and Saudi Arabia, is inevitable is ridiculous. If our goals were so low as that we could have gotten it with Hillary.
---

red sox 777 posted...

That piece was typical of CNN - bombastic, boring, and missing the point. Withdrawing at this time was good to hurt Russia? Seriously?

It's an opinion piece by a I believe soldier / former soldier who wife was a soldier and died in the conflict also?

---

red sox 777 posted...

A weak leader who lacks creativity like Hillary Clinton or John McCain would keep our army there until the end of time stalling an "inevitable" war. A great dealmaker like Donald Trump should be trying to build real peace. This idea that a war between Turkey and the Kurds, or between Iran and Saudi Arabia, is inevitable is ridiculous. If our goals were so low as that we could have gotten it with Hillary.

That's like saying a real leader would be able to secure sovereign independent nations for Taiwan and Hong Kong. When two groups are ideologically completely opposed to the point of no return, there is not much that can be done besides trying.

Turkey and the Kurds has been a long standing issue for decades. I mean, you can try but acting like you are doing a shitty job if you can't magically fix the conflict is insane.

---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That piece was typical of CNN - bombastic, boring, and missing the point. Withdrawing at this time was good to hurt Russia? Seriously?

It's an opinion piece by a I believe soldier / former soldier who wife was a soldier and died in the conflict also?

Doubtless the author is sincere and loves America. He can still be wrong, and if he is wrong in this way......well CNN will love him.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Doubtless the author is sincere and loves America. He can still be wrong, and if he is wrong in this way......well CNN will love him.

I get that you like war and want it and so on, but how does CNN publishing an opinion piece that goes against the grain of their talking points reflect their usual typical self?

---

Tulsi sucks part 1674:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1187544241427214336

---

So Trump's favorability is cratering so bad that a recent Rasmussen Poll has him at -11.

Last time they polled him that badly? January 2018.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Tulsi sucks part 1674:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1187544241427214336

Does she suck because she wants transparency, because she doesn't believe we should be at each other's throats ideologically, or for her platforms she stands for?

---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

A weak leader who lacks creativity like Hillary Clinton or John McCain would keep our army there until the end of time stalling an "inevitable" war. A great dealmaker like Donald Trump should be trying to build real peace. This idea that a war between Turkey and the Kurds, or between Iran and Saudi Arabia, is inevitable is ridiculous. If our goals were so low as that we could have gotten it with Hillary.

That's like saying a real leader would be able to secure sovereign independent nations for Taiwan and Hong Kong. When two groups are ideologically completely opposed to the point of no return, there is not much that can be done besides trying.

Turkey and the Kurds has been a long standing issue for decades. I mean, you can try but acting like you are doing a shitty job if you can't magically fix the conflict is insane.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wasn't able to solve the problem, since it's hard, but this does not feel like trying. When Trump tries he can do stuff like the North Korea summits and the trade war with China. I think Turkey would be hard pressed to refuse an invitation to a peace summit at Mar A Lago, for instance. And, I don't see why Russia wouldn't want a peaceful situation in Syria and the Middle East generally as long as Russia's interests are protected. If Trump and Putin get together and put up a united front it would be very hard for a smaller country not to listen.

Also, the situation in China/Taiwan/Hong Kong is different. Neither Taiwan nor Hong Kong have ever expressed a wish for independence in a Democratic way. For decades Taiwan asserted it was the lawful government of all of China (and I think that is still the official policy now). If Taiwan and HK had decided back in the 70s or 80s that they wanted to be independent, they likely would be now.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If Taiwan and HK had decided back in the 70s or 80s that they wanted to be independent, they likely would be now.

Oh really now? lol

---

Corrik7 posted...

Does she suck because she wants transparency, because she doesn't believe we should be at each other's throats ideologically, or for her platforms she stands for?

She sucks because the whole argument is bullshit, she knows it, and she's helping the GOP spread misinformation. They're abiding by rules put in place by Boehner and the Republicans. It was like 4 months into the Benghazi investigations before they had any public hearings. Impeachment in the House is an indictment, so Trump is not being "denied due process"; he'll get to cross examine people etc in the actual trial in the Senate. Etc, etc, etc.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Tulsi sucks part 1674:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1187544241427214336

oh for god's sake how is it possible for progressives to like this woman

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Doubtless the author is sincere and loves America. He can still be wrong, and if he is wrong in this way......well CNN will love him.

I get that you like war and want it and so on, but how does CNN publishing an opinion piece that goes against the grain of their talking points reflect their usual typical self?

I like war? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I am generally anti-war and have been steadfastly opposed to the Iraq War since when it was first proposed. I would support bringing our troops home from Germany, Japan, etc. and ending NATO.

And CNN's usual thing is to publish clickbait and misleading centrist stuff that makes them look objective while refusing to give a voice to good arguments for anyone other than centrists.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

She sucks because the whole argument is bullshit, she knows it, and she's helping the GOP spread misinformation. They're abiding by rules put in place by Boehner and the Republicans. It was like 4 months into the Benghazi investigations before they had any public hearings. Impeachment in the House is an indictment, so Trump is not being "denied due process"; he'll get to cross examine people etc in the actual trial in the Senate. Etc, etc, etc.

You are arguing it's bullshit because Republicans didn't do it in the past. Maybe she is beyond the doing something just because the other side did it. So, is it that she wants transparency, not be at the throats of the other side of spectrum, or her platforms that makes her suck?

I mean, saying because she isn't being petty the way you say Republicans were petty doesn't seem like a good reason to me.

This person sucks because that person did something shitty to them and they didn't do something shitty back seems a bit silly.

If you thought Republicans were wrong to do what they did in all this situations then you should agree it is wrong here also. Or are you saying Republicans were right in what they did then?

---

The private nature of the Congressional investigation was not the problematic aspect of Benghazi.

---

red sox 777 posted...

And CNN's usual thing is to publish clickbait and misleading centrist stuff that makes them look objective while refusing to give a voice to good arguments for anyone other than centrists.

CNN and Fox's usually thing is to post off the grain opinion pieces to act like they are impartial and for their main user base just to criticize. It is kind of why they need generally a rotating base of writers for their opinion pieces because not many are going to want to get perpetually criticized to the end of time on anything they write.

But, why would the off the grain piece be typical of a CNN piece? It is precisely there to not be typical.

And, yes, you seem very taken with remaining in the Syria conflict, when there is no end game to it. I can see many of the liberal minds in here being for remaining because they were probably for Hillary and her no fly zones which would have likely led to war with Russia in the area, but someone who opposed Hillary for probably this reason but who also wants to in perpetuity stay in a region to try and police divides that have existed for many decades before we ever even entered the area seems silly to me.

---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If Taiwan and HK had decided back in the 70s or 80s that they wanted to be independent, they likely would be now.

Oh really now? lol

Yes. China ceded Hong Kong island and the southern part of Kowloon to Britain in perpetuity in the 1840s. In 1898, China leased the remainder of what is today the Hong Kong SAR to Britain for 99 years. If the people of Hong Kong had demanded that the original treaties between China and Britain be enforced, most likely they would have been. The border would have moved in 1997 to restore the leased land to China and the remainder - including the city center - would have remained British.

In the 80s, China and Britain signed a new treaty restoring all of Hong Kong to China in 1997 on condition that China allow Hong Kong self-rule for 50 years. To date, China has kept strictly to the terms of the treaties it signed (the letter anyway, maybe not the spirit).

And yeah, if Taiwan had wanted to leave in the 70s or 80s, not as a independent Chinese state but as an independent non-Chinese state, that could probably have been arranged. But of course that wasn't really possible because the identity of the Taiwanese state and the overwhelming majority of the population is as Chinese.
---

trump hasnt even been charged with any crime yet or been actually brought up to be impeached

this pre-show part of it doesnt need to be public at all

when do cops show off all their evidence before charging someone for a crime?
---

The Democrats are literally giving him due-process and yet are being condemned consistently for...a lack of due process.

Republicans have long since crossed the point where they realize they can say anything and their supporters wont remotely look at the facts.
---

Corrik7 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And CNN's usual thing is to publish clickbait and misleading centrist stuff that makes them look objective while refusing to give a voice to good arguments for anyone other than centrists.

CNN and Fox's usually thing is to post off the grain opinion pieces to act like they are impartial and for their main user base just to criticize. It is kind of why they need generally a rotating base of writers for their opinion pieces because not many are going to want to get perpetually criticized to the end of time on anything they write.

But, why would the off the grain piece be typical of a CNN piece? It is precisely there to not be typical.

And, yes, you seem very taken with remaining in the Syria conflict, when there is no end game to it. I can see many of the liberal minds in here being for remaining because they were probably for Hillary and her no fly zones which would have likely led to war with Russia in the area, but someone who opposed Hillary for probably this reason but who also wants to in perpetuity stay in a region to try and police divides that have existed for many decades before we ever even entered the area seems silly to me.

My view is that the United States should follow the British Empire model of projecting strength not through having our military everywhere, but by being able to send our military anywhere, and been viewed as extremely reliable a friend. The British were able to rule a third of the world with a standing army of 250k in this way. Now, since we don't (or shouldn't) seek hegemony, our goals should require even less resources than the British Empire used.
---

trump isn't even being charged with a crime at all

this isn't a criminal proceeding

that's the part that kills me the most

congress DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO have due process for voting a president out, they can just do it.

Paratroopa1 posted...

trump isn't even being charged with a crime at all

this isn't a criminal proceeding

that's the part that kills me the most

congress DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO have due process for voting a president out, they can just do it.

or rather the house doesn't need due process to vote to impeach

the hearing afterwards has a little more due process to it but it's still not a criminal trial

@Corrik7 How many times in the history of ever have the interview portions of an investigation been released before the trial?

Investigators question people separately from each other for a reason: So the subsequent witnesses arent sure what the other witnesses specifically said, so they have less chance of coordination/more reason to be truthful.
---

Tulsis dropping out of her House race

Guessing it wasnt looking good for her!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Tulsis dropping out of her House race

Guessing it wasnt looking good for her!

Probably wants to concentrate on her third party run
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Tulsis dropping out of her House race

Guessing it wasnt looking good for her!

To run as a Republican? Surely she can't run third-party because then it would just prove Hillary right.

---

I was totally not going to run third party, but then Hillary was mean to me and forced me to!!

---

She did just say again that she's not going to run third party

But she also said she was boycotting the debate
---

lmao

sorry guys i can't be your house rep because what i gotta focus on is my total real bid for the presidency that's lookin' so hot this is very important

hopefully she can fuck off after the election
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

lmao

sorry guys i can't be your house rep because what i gotta focus on is my total real bid for the presidency that's lookin' so hot this is very important

hopefully she can fuck off after the election

It seems you havent heard that its down to a two person race between Tulsi and Hillary...!

---

Literally what the fuck is she doing
---

What Tulsi does best: Changing her mind.

"I'm not a puppet!"
*Short time later*
"Oh hello right wing news outlet i would like to speak today to repeat your talking points on the impeachment"
---

Tulsi 2020.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

@Corrik7 How many times in the history of ever have the interview portions of an investigation been released before the trial?

Investigators question people separately from each other for a reason: So the subsequent witnesses arent sure what the other witnesses specifically said, so they have less chance of coordination/more reason to be truthful.

I don't know. I wonder why people keep bringing up Benghazi and such regarding Conservative behavior if it is normal to do so.

That said, I believe the entire problem with the transparency part is that Republicans believe that the interviews are partially being leaked with only out of context info that would make headlines negatively toward Trump. Even accusing the Democrats in the process of being the ones purposely leaking certain details.

That the transparency call is due to the leaks happening because it is either supposed to be private and info not released or it should be transparent. Not just releasing bits and pieces you wish the public to have without the surrounding pieces.

So, the question is... Would you be against silencing all leaks? And would Republicans want full transparency if all leaks were silenced?

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yes. China ceded Hong Kong island and the southern part of Kowloon to Britain in perpetuity in the 1840s. In 1898, China leased the remainder of what is today the Hong Kong SAR to Britain for 99 years. If the people of Hong Kong had demanded that the original treaties between China and Britain be enforced, most likely they would have been. The border would have moved in 1997 to restore the leased land to China and the remainder - including the city center - would have remained British.

In the 80s, China and Britain signed a new treaty restoring all of Hong Kong to China in 1997 on condition that China allow Hong Kong self-rule for 50 years. To date, China has kept strictly to the terms of the treaties it signed (the letter anyway, maybe not the spirit).

And yeah, if Taiwan had wanted to leave in the 70s or 80s, not as a independent Chinese state but as an independent non-Chinese state, that could probably have been arranged. But of course that wasn't really possible because the identity of the Taiwanese state and the overwhelming majority of the population is as Chinese.

I am not sure if you actually believe this.

---

I think we found the solution to all the UK government problems

https://www.foxnews.com/science/excalibur-sword-found-bosnia
---