obama at 91.4% to win

billybob420

billybob420

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
when i pull my johnson i rarely get numbers....

johnson will score about 0 electoral votes, and probably about 2-4% of the national popular vote.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wouldn't of expected him to get any electoral votes, but that 5% sounded kind of exciting. Would be nice to shake up those boring ass circle jerk debates next time around.
 
billybob420

billybob420

Well-Known Member
The reason it came to mind is cause my gf decided to vote for him all the sudden. Out of no where.

She's a die hard bleeding heart so it came as a bit of a surprise.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Samwell Seed Well said:
here i was thinking chance of winning was the subject mater
Click to expand...
the subject of discussion is not related to the subject of the sentence, which was in fact "Electoral Votes"

here's an example:

billy joey and mary like animals. (subject: billy joey and mary)
billy and mary have cats (subject: billy and mary)
joey has a dog (subject: joey)
it's name is fido. (this sentence lacks a clearly defined subject, instead offering only the possessive pronoun "It's" which means you look to the preceding sentence for the possible subject which happens to be, logically, joey's dog)

and thats why kojin wrote that obama will score 91.6% of the electoral vote.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
the subject of discussion is not related to the subject of the sentence, which was in fact "Electoral Votes"

here's an example:

billy joey and mary like animals. (subject: billy joey and mary)
billy and mary have cats (subject: billy and mary)
joey has a dog (subject: joey)
it's name is fido. (this sentence lacks a clearly defined subject, instead offering only the possessive pronoun "It's" which means you look to the preceding sentence for the possible subject which happens to be, logically, joey's dog)

and thats why kojin wrote that obama will score 91.6% of the electoral vote.
Click to expand...
But...but... but, Sweden. LOL!
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
billybob420 said:
The reason it came to mind is cause my gf decided to vote for him all the sudden. Out of no where.

She's a die hard bleeding heart so it came as a bit of a surprise.
Click to expand...


maybe she is not as leftist as advertised.

many people are leftists when people are watching, but when left to their own devices, or when anonymous they demonstrate remarkable resistance to the weepy leftie disease.
why it's possible that she doesnt always "Think of The Children!!!" when nobody is standing nearby expecting her to "Think of The Children!!"
 
billybob420

billybob420

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
maybe she is not as leftist as advertised.

many people are leftists when people are watching, but when left to their own devices, or when anonymous they demonstrate remarkable resistance to the weepy leftie disease.
why it's possible that she doesnt always "Think of The Children!!!" when nobody is standing nearby expecting her to "Think of The Children!!"
Click to expand...
That's kinda what I'm hoping.
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
your simple sentences hold little relevance to the one currently at hand

i dont see how they are even similar

your comparing put the ball thru the circle slot game to Sudoku imo
 
k0ijn

k0ijn

Scientia Cannabis
Dr Kynes said:
his statement was either a fundamental misunderstanding of the conclusions of that slimy bookie, or a deliberate deception.
his NUMEROUS assertions about his massive intellect largely preclude the possibility that he didnt understand the information he cited.

"What the percentages value is the chance of winning based on electoral votes.
And at this stage he is behind Obamas 91.6% (Rmoney has 8.4% for the mathematically inept of you)."

this statement stands alone, separate from the waffle and the gish gallop. it clearly asserts the following:

the percentages in the slimy bookie's website are based on the electoral vote.
obama leads romney by 91.6%, and romney HAS (note the possessive present tense) 8.4% (which clearly refers to the subject of the last sentence, which was "Electoral Votes")

this is not the language of the oddsmaker's projections, this is the language of the sportscaster calling a game thats mostly over. any game where one team leads the other by 91-8 is pretty much OVER. unless you got harry potter on the bench, you cant come back from a deficit like that.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you are so stubborn.
What I wrote still stands.
I said that the percentages value the chance of winning based on electoral votes.
That means the "odds of winning" or whatever other synonym you choose to use.

I have made it clear and Samwell has made it clear.

I did not misunderstand anything.
I was talking about the chance of winning which was the subject matter from the get go.
We weren't talking about electoral votes, the damn THREAD name is about the CHANCE/ODDS of Obama winning the election.

I can't see how you can honestly sit here and type your bullshit when you are being so ignorant you can't even look at the threads name (AND THEREFORE SUBJECT MATTER).

Is that spelled out for you well enough?

The SUBJECT MATTER of this thread is Obamas CHANCE/ODDS of winning.

You are fucking delusional man.


Your assertion is so shit.
When I said "Rmoney has 8.4%" I was speaking the previous sentence structure in which I was talking about CHANCE.
The "Rmoney has 8.4%" could also have been structured as: "Rmoney has 8.4% chance".
It is implied in the damn sentence. Are you completely inept at reading or what is the problem here?

You are showing yourself to be a massive arse. You are making a fucking fool of yourself.

You are trying to say that I was talking about HAVING electoral votes when I was actually talking about CHANCE of winning in a fucking thread named: Obama 91.4% win - About Obamas chance of winning measured in percentages.

I mean wtf man. What the hell are you on about?!


I don't know why you are talking about an oddsmaker either.
These are predictions made by Nate Silver, a leading statistician who was near perfectly correct on his predictions last election.
He is not a bookie.
 
k0ijn

k0ijn

Scientia Cannabis
Dr Kynes said:
the subject of discussion is not related to the subject of the sentence, which was in fact "Electoral Votes"

here's an example:

billy joey and mary like animals. (subject: billy joey and mary)
billy and mary have cats (subject: billy and mary)
joey has a dog (subject: joey)
it's name is fido. (this sentence lacks a clearly defined subject, instead offering only the possessive pronoun "It's" which means you look to the preceding sentence for the possible subject which happens to be, logically, joey's dog)

and thats why kojin wrote that obama will score 91.6% of the electoral vote.
Click to expand...
Here you go again.

We are in a thread which has a subject matter of "Obama 91.4% win" and the discussion from the first page was about Obamas CHANCE of winning.

But here you come and try to change a fact which is readily available in the damn title.

The subject matter was NOT electoral votes.
It was chance. C_H_A_N_C_E.
Read the damn first post of the thread, read the first pages again. It seems like you are REALLY confused.

You can't twist my words. You are making a damn fool of yourself.
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
Kynes, tread lightly. k0ijn disproved a poll of 6 year olds earlier today. Be careful...
 
k0ijn

k0ijn

Scientia Cannabis
kelly4 said:
Kynes, tread lightly. k0ijn disproved a poll of 6 year olds earlier today. Be careful...
Click to expand...
Look at the title of this thread, read the first post.
This thread is about CHANCE of winning.

No matter how much your delusional mind might try to make this about having electoral votes it'll never be true.

You guys are out so deep you are trying to change the topic of a thread because it doesn't match your arguments.
 
Samwell Seed Well

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
really, ad hominem attacks and claims of racism and bigotry?

and i'm the one who is desperate?
Click to expand...
you have admitted you dont like black people because of your childhood, you have admitted you would prefer to live in a single culture(race) society . . .

what am i missing

and how, in any way, is my comments an attack on you

fucking pathetic, you need to smoke a bowl today and sharpen up
 
BadDog40

BadDog40

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
really, ad hominem attacks and claims of racism and bigotry?

and i'm the one who is desperate?
Click to expand...


Your fucking ass gets owned in just about every thread you come into. Do you just regurgitate bullshit just to see yourself type?

Fucking trolls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top