Politics 2017 part V

[Pidesco]

 

Saying he did nothing is certainly hyperbole. However, the most tiring thing he ever did, mentally or physically, before becoming the President was probably recording episodes of The Apprentice.

 

 

Actually I doubt his hosting duties were all that strenuous. However running multiple business and handling real estate is where he makes his money, and he seems to be very involved in that. I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss his work ethic. There are plenty of other flaws for us to hold against him.

 

edit: Also, the campaign itself is a tremendous grind, and should have given him a pretty good idea of what the presidency would be like. He campaigned for well over a year and all evidence points to him doing it tirelessly. He would have burnt out long before the election if he really was a lazy guy.

I don't think he ever did much more than speaking to yes men and delegating actual work when running his various businesses. As for the campaign, while being always on the road is certainly strenuous in and of itself, his speeches were always almost entirely off the cuff for a reason. He prepares nothing beforehand, and doesn't think more than 5 minutes about any given subject.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, if you're running a Trump size business then the owner does as much or as little work as they want. Nobody in his company is going to tell him he has to get off the golf course but he has plenty of employees he can delegate to if needed. It's a bit different when running a country though, and a lot more like what normal people would regard as an actual job.

 

I very much doubt that Trump was 'lazy' before becoming president though, he always seemed to be looking for interesting stuff to do whether it was wrestling or The Apprentice; but it was stuff that he very much chose to be involved in and could leave if he wanted.

[Volourn]

"volo I still cant believe you live in the mountains without electricity, I was watching this episode of Mountain Men and man those guys are tough  :p"

 

I live in a 'city'. Just not one of those ultrat violent psychopathic city that Liberals are proud of. says the guiy whsoe favorite city in the world is New York. LMAO

[Guard Dog]

Prediction: Trump will not run for reelection. Book it.

[BruceVC]

Prediction: Trump will not run for reelection. Book it.

Yes thats a safe bet I would also take   

[BruceVC]

 

 

Prediction: Trump will not run for reelection. Book it.

Yes thats a safe bet I would also take   

 

 

Considering you were adamant about betting on Clinton I would take that bet. How is 25.000 $ sound like?

 

Yes I did expect Hilary to win but I dont think I offered any bets on it, I do gamble but that's in a controlled environment like a casino

 

This is important to me because I want to be assured I can effectively claim any money I may win, I don't want to hear " sorry I dont have the 25k "   

 

So lets say we take this bet what guarantee can you give me I will get this 25k  from you if I win and how can you show me you have this 25k. You may think Im being rude but you cant just take a bet on this amount and expect people to automatically believe you being serious ?

[Volourn]

" controlled environment like a casino "

 

'Controlled'. You mean where they cheat and stack the deck against you? LMAO

[Guard Dog]

 

" controlled environment like a casino "

 

'Controlled'. You mean where they cheat and stack the deck against you? LMAO

Had some bad experiences gambling, huh?

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

" controlled environment like a casino "

 

'Controlled'. You mean where they cheat and stack the deck against you? LMAO

 I dont believe casino's cheat, I go to large and international casinos like MonteCasino...its got shops and banks and movies and several gambling floors but the entire casino is legally allowed to provide legal gambling?

 

https://www.tsogosun.com/montecasino

[Volourn]

I've never been to a casino. L0L

 

But, they absolutely do cheat/stack th deck. It's a known fact. There's a reason why they make tons of money. If things were 'fair' and 'up and up'  there wouldn't be a 99% chance of losing. LMAO

 

The 'rules' (such as they are) are strictly designed for them to make tons of profit. I wouldn't doubt they have their employees 'count cards' even as they throw people who 'count cards'. They also have thugs in their emplopyee to beat up people who cross them. EVIL.

[Azdeus]

I must agree with Volourn here I'm sad to say.

 

EVIL.

[Guard Dog]

Nah they are not evil. I've never once heard of them kidnapping a guy on the street and bringing him back and forcing him to play. Folks walk in freely, get screwed over and ask for another.

[BruceVC]

I must agree with Volourn here I'm sad to say.

 

EVIL.

 

Nah they are not evil. I've never once heard of them kidnapping a guy on the street and bringing him back and forcing him to play. Folks walk in freely, get screwed over and ask for another.

I cannot blame any casino for being the cause of gambling addiction or someone losing their life savings even though I have seen this first hand because its about decision and consequence. People have got to take some sense of responsibility for not going into a casino if you know you cannot trust yourself gambling

 

Remember a gambling addiction is a sickness like any other addiction and there are several ways to avoid gambling in casinos.....what they teach you on day 1 at these gambling anonymous meetings is you MUST avoid all and any gambling institutions. This is the beginning of a series of steps you need to take to not feed the gambling addiction

 

This should be obvious yet people ignore this and relapse ....any of these very helpful organisations like AA  or Narcotics Anonymous also understand people relapse and this is part of the process of recovery. They dont judge you but you need to start the various steps again. Take a look at there website and see the various 12 steps people follow on the path to gambling addiction

 

http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/node/1

[HoonDing]

who cares about card counting

 

just put 10 points in luck and win teh blackjacks and slots

[Hurlshort]

Casinos are pretty clear about the fact that they hold the edge. They bank on the fact that over time, they will always come out ahead. Not quite sure how you can expect anything else, those glittery lightbulbs don't come for free. It's very much a business, and even when it was run by mobsters, it was still just a matter of odds and numbers. Some games may allow you to minimize loss with a decent strategy, but even those are still going to be stacked against you.

[Volourn]

Also, I should point out, i don't feel sorry for gambolholics anymore than i do alocoholics.  Grow up, and tgake eprsonal responsibility. But, elt's also not pretend that the casinos are running a 'fair' operation because they aren't. They are there to make money and if that means they get to 'cheat'  and stack the rules to hevaily favor themsleves and use bully tatics to get what they want they absolutely well. And, the law allows them to do so.

[Hurlshort]

It's not even really cheating, you can go up to any table in Vegas and ask for a list of the odds that tells you exactly what your chances of winning are. The entertainment value is not too bad though, and even though the odds are against you, if you gamble regularly you will have some lucky streaks. It's only an issue when you see it as more than that. 

[Azdeus]

It's not even really cheating, you can go up to any table in Vegas and ask for a list of the odds that tells you exactly what your chances of winning are. The entertainment value is not too bad though, and even though the odds are against you, if you gamble regularly you will have some lucky streaks. It's only an issue when you see it as more than that. 

 

Which is a problem when it comes to people being mathematically illiterate, which these companies exploit without hesitation and remorse. Especially when relatively poor people that couldn't afford proper education get caught up in it.

 

Edit; Spelling

Edited April 30, 2017 by Azdeus

[Bartimaeus]

Math literacy is such a weird thing. There are so many people that I know that struggle understanding basic stuff like ratios. If you're getting a chocolate milkshake, which is more price efficient, $4 for 8oz, or $5.50 for 12oz? A lot of people either don't know how to figure that out besides just making a guess on "what they feel is right", or they don't want to expend the energy/thought to it...or don't think they'll be successful if they do try. So yeah, I can see that definitely being an education problem.

 

(e): Holy awful writing, Batman - fixed this terrible post a little.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[ShadySands]

I only gamble for the free drinks. I might have a problem... getting to the next casino

[Hurlshort]

Math literacy is such a weird thing. There are so many people that I know that struggle understanding basic stuff like ratios. If you're getting a chocolate milkshake, which is more price efficient, $4 for 8oz, or $5.50 for 12oz? A lot of people either don't know how to figure that out besides just making a guess on "what they feel is right", or they don't want to expend the energy/thought to it...or don't think they'll be successful if they do try. So yeah, I can see that definitely being an education problem.

 

(e): Holy awful writing, Batman - fixed this terrible post a little.

 

Heh, with the milkshake I tend to think whether I can handle that extra 4 oz first.

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, that's how they get you. The smaller ones are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting, but if you try to tip the scales a little more in your favor, you'll just get sick drinking a larger one. That's why it's better to just have someone to share it with.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Gfted1]

Having just been to Vegas in January, a few observations:

 

1) Odds fella's, everything has odds. For example, your odds of winning a roulette spin are 37:1, which happen to be the best odds in the casino iirc.

2) The free drinks you get while gambling are of the lowest quality alcohols and are so small you are done in 3 sips. Drinks at a bar inside the casino are pretty expensive now so we would set up shop at one of the bars on the Vegas Strip and get our drunk on for cheap.

3) I won ~$300 on the crap table and then ran like a bandit. "Know when to hold em, know when to fold em" isn't just a catchy tune. I watched almost all my friends win a little cash, then get all ballsy and decide to make it rain, then ultimately walk away from the table having lost money.

[Lexx]

Yeah, that's how they get you. The smaller ones are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting, but if you try to tip the scales a little more in your favor, you'll just get sick drinking a larger one. That's why it's better to just have someone to share it with.

 

Sharing? What is this communist propaganda in here.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Lexx

[Guard Dog]

So it looks like Peruta v California is likely to find itself on the Supreme Court docket next year.  This excerpt from the article describes the meat of the issue:

 

 

At issue in Peruta v. California is a state law that says conceal-carry permits will only be issued to those persons who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their local county sheriff that they have a "good cause" for carrying a concealed firearm in public. What counts as a "good cause?" In the words of one San Diego official, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." In effect, the local sheriff has vast discretion to pick and choose who gets a permit and who doesn't. Because the guidelines are unclear there is a severe risk of arbitrary enforcement. As one previous court ruling on the matter observed, "in California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table."

 

This is a little different than the previous two gun control cases. In those the issue was complete prohibition of ownership in the home. In those cases the justices (the good ones at least) remembered what "shall not be infringed" means. This is about the issuance of concealed carry permits which has always been at the pleasure of the State. Even in DC v Heller Scalia reaffirmed the latitude on the part of the government for "reasonable restrictions" in the same paragraph he said prohibition is not reasonable.

 

I have to admit to being somewhat torn by this one. On one hand I am very much in favor of allowing citizens in good standing to carry firearms so long as it is done in compliance with the laws of their state. California's oppressive attitude on this issue does not make a lot of sense to me. But on the other hand I VERY much believe it is up to the citizens, voters, and legislators of California to determine how California conducts it's business. The Federal Government and the citizens of other states should mind their own business IMO. 

 

So what it comes down to is does the 2nd Amendment which reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." permit carrying arms in public? It has never been interpreted that way before to my knowledge. So for my part I'm going to say no. The Constitution is the supreme law of the US and what it does not specifically cover is reserved for the State (and lower) governments. And California has made it's position of this clear. If you don't like it the remedy should be sought in Sacramento, not on 1st Street in Washington DC. 

 

This is an interesting case because folks who are pro-gun rights are also usually pro-states rights and its rare to see those two priorities turned in opposition to each other.

 

One more onion to toss in this stew is the Trump administration is considering a bill to insist on unlimited reciprocity of concealed carry permits in all states. But I'm sure that will mean all states the issue them. I'm actually against this too for the same reasons. Mine is issued in my home state but is honored in every other state in the south except Kentucky. Kentucky has a slightly different standard for issuance. But some states have caliber restrictions and other nuances that differentiate them. Carrying a weapon is a responsibility. It should be incumbent upon the permit holder to research the laws for any state they plan on traveling to. When I was working in Louisville the pistol was under the seat and ammunition locked in the glove compartment. That was the law.

 

Here is the article. This one will be interesting to watch I think. http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/25/is-this-the-supreme-courts-next-big-seco