Betting markets have Trump by a good bit

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Wait until you see what’s currently cooking with Walz.
Disgusting allegations incoming.
Everyone can follow along here.
The info is dropping now…

x.com...

I do not believe anyone who draws out evidence like that poster is doing.
He wants engagement on his twitter account.
He's treating the 'story' as a TV script , dropping cliff hangers.
I blocked him.

I don’t like the slow drip either, not a good look.
The fact that his account history is legit, and that his thread has more evidence than the Kavanaugh and Trump accusations combined, I’m inclined to give it a fair look.
The accusations are very easily disproven by Walz if indeed bogus.
Walz has some explaining to do.

a reply to: Vermilion

The candidate hasn't told the truth about much.
It fits his MO to a T, T as in touchdown.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Wait until you see what’s currently cooking with Walz.
Disgusting allegations incoming.
Everyone can follow along here.
The info is dropping now…

x.com...

I do not believe anyone who draws out evidence like that poster is doing.
He wants engagement on his twitter account.
He's treating the 'story' as a TV script , dropping cliff hangers.
I blocked him.

I don’t like the slow drip either, not a good look.
The fact that his account history is legit, and that his thread has more evidence than the Kavanaugh and Trump accusations combined, I’m inclined to give it a fair look.
The accusations are very easily disproven by Walz if indeed bogus.
Walz has some explaining to do.

I hold the same standard as in the Kavanaugh accusations - he shouldn't have needed to prove his innocence, just like Walz should not.
Guilt must be proven, not innocence.
IMO, guilt needs to be proven through the correct channels, not a twitter /X thread engagement farming through a drip drip of information.
I don't agree with trials by public opinion.
This is where libel laws should be tighter and not so difficult for a public figure to prove damagaes.

a reply to: UKTruth

who should do the investigation? The Biden DOJ? LOL!

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: UKTruth

who should do the investigation? The Biden DOJ? LOL!

No, I have no problem with independent journalists or any journalists investigating these types of things, but do the investigation and publish findings that you can verify... don't just drip feed stuff and create partial narratives that can destroy people in the court of public opinion. I have no time for that. It's usually a Democrat tactic and copying them is not the way to go.

a reply to: UKTruth

It’s definitely suspect yet there are some compelling reasons to give it a hard look.
The abused man details Walz’ scars, tattoos and other markings.
If Walz doesn’t have a chest scar or a Chinese character in tattoo on his upper thigh, details provided by the victim, then why wouldn’t Walz just say so?
Walz has admitted taking a, unrelated to him, 14 year old minor to a concert alone.
That’s a giant red flag right there.
This Walz dude is putting off some serious Sandusky vibes.

I have a brother who is a pathological liar. Tim Walz is a pathological liar. When you lie about multitudes of immaterial things no one cares about, creating a false narrative of your life that also no one cares about, you have issues. Unfortunately for him, his lies are being exposed quite easily. Who lies about having your children via IVF????? His wife has denied the claims and I'm sure she would know.

But that's how disturbed he is. He shouldn't be a VPOTUS nor a governor of MN. The man is a looney.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: UKTruth

who should do the investigation? The Biden DOJ? LOL!

No, I have no problem with independent journalists or any journalists investigating these types of things, but do the investigation and publish findings that you can verify... don't just drip feed stuff and create partial narratives that can destroy people in the court of public opinion. I have no time for that. It's usually a Democrat tactic and copying them is not the way to go.

It appears from his post, he just received the claims. There is little time to do 'due diligence' so drip feeding is the only means at this point to get the info out. Time will tell. But I agree with your opinion. I'm always hesitant of abuse claims when they are so late to the game. Why they do that, I don't know. This could have come out much sooner.

And being a victim of many abuses growing up in foster care, I am fully aware of the shame and guilt carried by the abused. I'm just glad that that part of my life is over and now, I'm in charge. I have accepted the fact that there are a lot of sick people on this planet. I exposed as much as I could at an early age to the proper agencies and even with corroboration from adults and other children, the claims weren't taken seriously, by any of us. So I learned early on I was on my own for my well being and never told authorities or CSD of any wrong doings after that. I simply had to remove myself from the abuse and did so any way I could without exposing the real issues. That being said, it is disturbing that so many 'victims' who participated willingly for their own benefit come out years later and claim victimhood.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
Ya'll are overly optimistic if you ask me. There's been many more Democrats than Republicans early voting in most of the swing states. They're building up a lead ahead of time with harvested and mailed ballots that god knows who signed.

I agree
The operation to rig the election in 2020 was extremely well organised and it's only going to be better this year.
There is a reason millions of illegal immigrants were both encouraged to come and then let in and given IDs.
There is no real election on Nov 5th.

I'd love to see someone do a statistical analysis of whether it's even possible for Harris to win. Trump is overperforming with young people, with black people, with Hispanics, and with suburban voters. But she's still gonna win.

There's got to be a threshold beyond which you hit with those voters as a Republican and it becomes mathematically impossible to lose.

I'd love to see someone do such an analysis with the 2020 election as well. I don't have the stats skills to do it.

originally posted by: burntheships
October Surprise dropping today on Timmy.

Story about Tim Walz and accusations of a sex scandal
while he was an assistant coach.

www.msn.com... r

www.ibtimes.sg...

I would imagine Trump betting odds will increase today.

This has now been proven to be faked.
That account on X is now toxic.
I am very glad the Trump campaign did not pick up on this and use it in any way.

THIS IS HOW YOU TREAT AMERICAN WAR HEROES

Crowd waiting for Trump rally to start moves aside so a WWII Veteran and his Wife can walk to the front of the line.

Source: gettr.com...

MAGA!

Currently Trump has a slight edge, around 56% chance of winning according the RCP average.

www.realclearpolling.com...

Remember Hillary was given over an 80% chance if winning in 2016 so 6% is effectively a toss-up.

Harris was ahead just a month ago, and Trump was gained about 10 points in the past month.

After two disasterous campaign appearances this past week, I expect Trump's odds to fall in the next week or so.

since 1972 i have never voted for the winning candidate for POTUS, I've always voted for the loser IOW

This cycle (2024) i cast my vote on 'trump-vance'...but Anticipate something to happen which will continue my record string of leadership losses

IOW, 'trump-vance' loses to 'kama-walz'...i agonized over voting for trump and against the Marx-ists
but i could not ever justify a 'harris' vote & hoping she loses the vote tally


?? A subset of the great RESET engaging ?

originally posted by: StudioNada


?? A subset of the great RESET engaging ?

this detour into clown world had to come for a reason. All those who register as democrats, didn't all just eat an ass load of mushrooms all at the same time, and for a few years. Something is in gear. Way too many out in the open moves going on. Everyone already forgot Joe Biden has been selling his favors for Hunters crack habbit. Like it never even happened.

originally posted by: jrod
Currently Trump has a slight edge, around 56% chance of winning according the RCP average.

www.realclearpolling.com...

Remember Hillary was given over an 80% chance if winning in 2016 so 6% is effectively a toss-up.

Harris was ahead just a month ago, and Trump was gained about 10 points in the past month.

After two disasterous campaign appearances this past week, I expect Trump's odds to fall in the next week or so.

The trendlines matter more than the numbers themselves.

The betting-market trendlines predict a big shift in polling will come in the next few days.
That’s what we’re starting to see now.
The recent Harris campaign's strategy shift shows exactly how desperate they’re becoming because of the trendlines.

a reply to: jrod

What disasters?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: StudioNada


?? A subset of the great RESET engaging ?

this detour into clown world had to come for a reason. All those who register as democrats, didn't all just eat an ass load of mushrooms all at the same time, and for a few years. Something is in gear. Way too many out in the open moves going on. Everyone already forgot Joe Biden has been selling his favors for Hunters crack habbit. Like it never even happened.

Dems made a play to turn us into a one-party state like China. They might have just done it too soon. Another decade or two and they'd definitely have enough of the public brainwashed. They churn them out by the millions through the education system. But it looks like they couldn't hold their wad long enough.

The vast majority of people do not even know that betting markets exist for this.
Thus this is like a poll of a very small subset of voters.
It means absolutely nothing.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking 'it's better because people are risking money'.

This would be like a poll that only samples tech savvy gamblers.

Clinton was massively favoured in the betting odds in 2016
On this day in 2016 she was at 85% chance of winning
On election day she had odds of 88%

Trump was over 90% on election night 2020.

a reply to: UKTruth

If you truly believe what you say, this is a money making opportunity for you. Don't miss out.

a reply to: UKTruth

Trump had about a 35% chance of winning on election night 2020 according to the betting odds averages. The highest was 40%...I have no idea where you got the 90% from.

www.realclearpolitics.com...