[svelte]

Man.

Now Rubio says that Trump “wet his pants”.

Not very presidential. He just joined Trump in the gutter.

[svelte]

[quote=livinincali]

I don’t know about this analysis. Doesn’t Hillary share a lot of these same draw backs. I don’t know a lot of Democrats that are all that excited about voting for her. They probably will when push comes to shove against Trump, but Hillary certainly doesn’t seem to excite the liberal base. [/quote]

That’s my impression too, which means Dem turnout may be low. What may bring liberal leaners out to vote, however, is the MJ initiatives in many states.

[svelte]

[quote=harvey][quote=paramount]Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.[/quote]

LOL, it’s backtested![/quote]

Yeah, when I saw the article online that was my prediction! 🙂

I too can write an algorithm that is about 100% accurate for anything that has happened in the past.

Next!

[svelte]

[quote=flu]
I find there is a sense of irony. When “progressives” were running around this country beating the drum about how african americans had a severe social and economic disadvantage in this country, a lot of the folks from the conservative states would say something like “it’s not because your black, it’s because you lack education/skill/training etc” and “stop playing the victim card”.

Now fast forward to the current environment. They are the same people that now saying, the reason why I can’t get a tech job is because I’m white, and all the damn indians and asians are stealing “our jobs”…Trump do something about that…Ok, who’s playing the victim card now?
[/quote]

lol yeah there is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides of the fence.

Another favorite hypocrisy of mine from Republicans: many of them will rant to me that “liberals” (they’ll sneer, as if that’s an insult) are taking away their liberty – that Republicans are all about freedom to do what one wants. Yeah, I’ll reply, that’s why they support gay marriage, legalization of MJ, and abortion rights. And they are all about freedom of religion – as long as you’re talking about Christianity. Muslims, many of them believe, should not be afforded the same religious freedoms.

There truly is something deeper going on right now. How else do you explain that Bernie, an admitted Jewish Democratic Socialist, is coming dangerously close to Hillary while a millionaire with zero political experience has forced a Bush out of the race?

Discontent with politicians in general? Might be a part of it. I think any time you see a bulge in the number of young voters, like you see now, you’ll see fringe or even third party candidates rise. I remember in my youth being enamored with H Ross Perot, though I’m a little embarrassed to admit it. He did say some very logical things, but also had some big flaws.

I’ve been scouring articles for something that makes sense with other theories too. I found an article recently that explained why evangelicals were voting in large numbers (though still not a majority of them) for Trump. It proposed that evans had given up the political war realizing they’ve lost. The article said now they just want someone who will make sure their voice will be heard, even if they know that person isn’t a good Christian or even a Christian at all. And who has the biggest mouth?

[svelte]

[quote=paramount]Just a few months ago I never would have guessed this outcome for Jeb.[/quote]

Me neither! Kind of amazing.

[svelte]

[quote=joec]
Shaved heads look good if you are buff/fit/muscular…but if you are skinny or scrawny, a shaved head only looks like you have cancer and are undergoing chemo…
[/quote]

Agree with this…

[quote=joec]
I think no hair at age 40+ and people not caring is only true because a lot of people have kids and are married so they “loss” the need/desire to impress the ladies (to get married/sex/etc…).

Without that care, some people (me included) see it as a waste of time/resources to look great/etc or spend a lot of money to achieve it.
[/quote]

What? Where did the “not caring” come from???

Look, I’ve been around quite a bit and I can tell you: yes there are a few women who care about a full head of hair…just like there are a few men who care about a huge rack. Is either position common? No! Though the common perception is that it is.

Truth be told, most men and women like more of the total package…they don’t make final decisions on one aspect.

Do more women prefer a full head of hair than a shaved head? probably. But from what I’ve witnessed it is not a huge difference.

Do more men prefer a large chest than a smaller chest? probably. But again from what I’ve seen not a huge difference.

It’s all in how you feel about yourself. if you come across as confident (not full of yourself) and self-assured, you’ll do just fine.

My wife is well-stacked. Do I enjoy that? Yes! But we have “friends” where the female is on the small to medium size. Does it affect how much I’m attracted to them? no! They are very sexy! I think it has made them more self-confident realizing that…I have what most women think is the ultimate woman, yet I find a lot of sizes/shapes/personas attractive, including them.

You’ll find the same thing vice-versa.

Chill, dudes. Take care of yourself. Be confident but not an arse. You’ll do just fine.

[svelte]

[quote=flu][quote=svelte][quote=flu][quote=svelte][quote=flu]Etrade is a ripoff. $16 per trade and 2cents per share. Schwab. $9.95 up to 1000 shares.[/quote]

Not sure what you’re talking about.

I just bought shares via etrade this week for $9.99 and no per share fee.[/quote]
I think the corporate plan fees are more expensive and don’t follow the 9.99 normal price.[/quote]

Then why wouldn’t you buy them without the corporate account? I don’t have any annual fees or anything. Costs me 9.99 per trade and that’s it.[/quote]

you can’t do the employee stock purchase outside of the corporate account that was setup even if you have an individual account. I already tried by asking if you can move the shares from the corporate created account to your individual. nope…[/quote]

Got it. So for your own company stock you have to use the corporate account. For everything else you can use an individual account and pay 9.99 like the rest of us.

[svelte]

You guys worry way too much about hair.

If you lose it in your 20s, yeah that would be a bummer. But by the time you’re 40s or even 30s, no big deal.

Agree that large and bald isn’t too great a look, but svelte and bald is pretty sharp.

My wife and I went to see Furious 7 due to something that was in it that piqued my interest. My son told me his GF was dying to see it, they went and she loved it. Now she’s not a car or action movie person, so I figured it had to be the guys in the film. To my surprise, most have a shaved head! Not sure which one had her interest, but I found it interesting.

Shaving my head is actually very liberating. Minimizes get-ready time in the AM. Looks very masculine. Haven’t noticed any difference in how I’m treated. Only drawbacks: when it’s very cold (but a black beanie looks really good!) and it’s hard to shake up my looks (so I change facial hair styles once in a while).

Other than that, no regrets. I think it looks way better than gray hair actually…those dudes walking around with large manes of gray look o-l-d.

[svelte]

[quote=flu][quote=svelte][quote=flu]Etrade is a ripoff. $16 per trade and 2cents per share. Schwab. $9.95 up to 1000 shares.[/quote]

Not sure what you’re talking about.

I just bought shares via etrade this week for $9.99 and no per share fee.[/quote]
I think the corporate plan fees are more expensive and don’t follow the 9.99 normal price.[/quote]

Then why wouldn’t you buy them without the corporate account? I don’t have any annual fees or anything. Costs me 9.99 per trade and that’s it.

[svelte]

[quote=flu]Etrade is a ripoff. $16 per trade and 2cents per share. Schwab. $9.95 up to 1000 shares.[/quote]

Not sure what you’re talking about.

I just bought shares via etrade this week for $9.99 and no per share fee.

[svelte]

[quote=svelte]

The biggest issue in this coming election, for me anyway, is who I want to make the Supreme Court choices for the next 4-8 years.
[/quote]

Can I call’em or what???

[svelte]

[quote=Blogstar]Seems to me like Bernie is the type that will get killed if he wins. I don’t want that to be my prediction, but it makes me wonder.[/quote]

I totally agree blogstar. Can’t imagine him winning the race for president.

[svelte]

Now the Republicans should hit the big red Panic button, as New Hampshire has chosen the correct Republican nominee for at least the last 4 elections.

Of course, the same can be said on the Democratic side…maybe they’ll both hit Panic at the same time.

[svelte]

[quote=doofrat][quote=svelte][quote=paramount]There was a great article in the New York times about the growing denial of reality.

For example, there is a mindset that the gender you identify with is what you are. You’re female if somehow you identify with the female gender as an example (ie Caitlyn).
[/quote]

Yeah I totally don’t get it either.

Gay rights, I’m all for. But this ‘T’ stuff that’s trying to tag along for the ride, I’m not buying.

If the person’s DNA says they are a male, they are a male. There’s no debate as to which bathroom or locker room they use, it is clear cut – no matter what clothes or makeup they choose to put on the outside of that DNA.[/quote]

So you’re saying these “Men” in the picture (from Wikipedia article on androgen insensitivity) should use the Mens restroom and wear Men’s clothes because they are genetically men, even though they have the body and genitalia of females. [/quote]

Don’t know how I can be more clear. If they have an X and a Y chromosome, use the men’s room buddy.

[quote=cvmom]
I think there are a few people who really do identify with a gender other than their biological one. But that is a minority, and lots of others are just going along for the ride for the fun of it.[/quote]

That’s all fine and good. I don’t care who they really identify with. I don’t even care if they are along for the ride. Go for it – dress however you want! I’m good with it! Just use the appropriate restroom for your DNA.

Really I think this whole issue (won’t call it a problem because its not) could be solved with unisex bathrooms full of individual stalls. I’d be all for that.

Why us guys accept a row of urinals is beyond me. I think the women’s room should have a row of toilets without walls for women who are just doing #1…same difference, right? I would have thought women would be against urinals in men’s rooms too cuz it is their guy standing there risking splash back time and time again. Their guy who they’ll be doing who knows what with later. Not to get too graphic, but this is never talked about.

[svelte]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=svelte]Let’s see.

Iowa didn’t pick the eventual Republican nominee in 2012:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa

Or in 2008:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/IA.html

And did in 2004 only because Bush ran unopposed in the Republican party.

Not so sure Iowa’s results tell us much.[/quote]

Actually Iowa told Us tons. It effectively identified three candidates on the repub side with the rest not garnering 25% collectively and the highest 9%. It also showed Rubio strong in the population centers.
[/quote]

Top three candidates were Cruz, Trump, Rubio. Rest in the noise. Exactly what the polls told us before Iowa.

As I said, didn’t tell us much.

[Author]

Posts