Bookmakers Going All In On Trump Winning

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 5:39 pm

Personally, I’d prefer that we just start the whole thing over, but, whatever

(The Hill) A major gambling website says nearly all wagers on the presidential election in the last 48 hours have been on Donald Trump to win.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power on Tuesday said 91 percent of bets on the election in the last two days have been backing Trump, the Republican nominee.

Huh.

“We’re not reaching for the rosary beads just yet but if money talks, and it usually does, it’s telling us that Trump still has a puncher’s chance and he’ll be leaving us with some very expensive egg on our face if he does manage to pull it off,” spokesman Féilim Mac An Iomaire said in a statement.

Of course, I have to wonder if these bets are based on thinking that Trump will really win, or if people are putting down long-shot bets looking for a big reward should he win, like putting a few bucks down a 30-1 horse to win.

Read: Bookmakers Going All In On Trump Winning »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful big city which is Concerned with climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Joshuapundit, with a post on what to expect up till election day.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Who’s Up For Ecosexual?

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 10:21 am

Mixing advocacy, gender confusion, and bat guano insanity

(Advocate) Over the past few years, some organizations and publications have added a Q, for queer, to the LGBT acronym — and now there are some who say we should add an E, for ecosexual.

The term has been around for much of the 21st century, although its definition can range from those who want to make environmental activism sexy and fun to those who derive sexual pleasure from interactions with nature. There are people who use sex products made from sustainable materials, enjoy hiking or swimming in the nude, or simply want to date other environmental activists, and others “who roll around in the dirt having an orgasm covered in potting soil” or “fuck trees, or masturbate under a waterfall,” Amanda Morgan, an ecosexual activist who teaches at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told Vice recently.

photo 62971d4a_zps18828beb.gif

Read: Who’s Up For Ecosexual? »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Enviroweenies | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Climastrologists Have Underestimated Sea Rise Or Something

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 8:01 am

In science, what do you do when the data fails to conform to your hypothesis? Correct, you rethink your hypothesis.

What do you do when you’re a member of the Cult of Climastrology? You change the data

Scientists Say We Underestimated How Much Sea Levels Have Risen

Scientists say in a new study that previous measurements of rising sea levels in the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century were wrong—it’s actually worse than we thought. They say we have been underestimating rising sea levels by 5 to 28 percent depending on the location in the world.

Crucial to the work was use of “ice melt fingerprints,” a tool originally used in 2001 to help scientists determine why melting ice in say, Antarctica, is different from melting ice in Alaska. Using the fingerprints, scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa closely analyzed various ice centers of the planet for a look at how they’ve been melting. Greenland was estimated to have been wrong by 28 percent off, while the melting Alps were off by 5 percent. The variations in individual ice centers give scientists reason to ratchet up the amount sea levels on the whole actually rose in the 20th century.

“The investigation concludes that it is highly unlikely that global average sea level rose less than” 5.5 inches, the previously widely accepted number, says the discovery’s lead author Phillip Thompson of the University of Hawai’i in a statement. The most likely amount was closer to 6.7 inches, they say.

So, even if they are correct, and it is 6.7 inches (there are already numerous studies that show the 20th Century sea rise was 7 inches), that provides absolutely no need for panic, as the average sea rise over the last 7,000 years, a time picked due to it being after the great sea rise from the end of the glacial age, is 6-8 inches per century. During a Holocene warm period, one would expect much higher sea rise, as they have been shorter than the cool periods, which would have much lower to even negative sea rise. This is how averages are calculated.

“This is the frontier in sea level science right now,” Thompson said. “We care about human timescale planning, decisions we’re going to make in the next 10 to 20 or 30 years.”

In that time frame, there will be little sea rise. Nothing to be concerned about, and certainly not anthropogenic. The point here, though, is to position things as Much Worse than previously thought, so, Government must be involved in central planning.

Read: Climastrologists Have Underestimated Sea Rise Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Washington Post Lays Out How Trump Can Win

By William Teach November 3, 2016 – 7:49 am

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post seems Very Concerned over how Donald Trump can win the election, and here’s their response

The only way Trump can win

AS THE 2016 presidential campaign draws to a close, Donald Trump is airing commercials that present him as a change agent who will shake up Washington. Not a mainstream politician, exactly, but nothing to be afraid of, either. This appeal seems to be having some success, as Mr. Trump pulls even with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in some national polls and surpasses her in likely voters’ judgment on who is more trustworthy.

Ultimately, though, this appeal can succeed only if voters succumb to last-minute distractions and ignore or forget Mr. Trump’s record. Allow us to offer a few reminders.

You didn’t think this was going to be a positive editorial, did you?

“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.”

This lie is emblematic, for two reasons. First, Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his returns is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters; every major-party nominee of the modern era has respected this basic norm of transparency.

Uh huh

  • “I’ve never received nor sent any material that was marked classified”
  • “At this point, what difference does it make?”
  • “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. ” (blaming the video for the Benghazi attack in public while telling her daughter in private it was a terrorist attack)

Then

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

They often aren’t sending their best. The crime reports show this. Hillary, on the other hand, wants to bring in 10’s of thousands of people from the Middle East who cannot be vetted, won’t be vetted, and resettle them over the objections of US citizens. We’ve seen how well this has worked out in Europe.

“You’d be in jail.”

American democracy survives the passions and animus stirred up every four years because its leaders always have accepted this rule: The loser acknowledges the winner, and the winner leaves the loser in peace. Mr. Trump disavows both sides of that time-tested formula.

She would be in jail if her name wasn’t Hillary Clinton. And the WPEB would cheer this if she was a Republican.

“I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

Mr. Trump’s celebration of torture provides one answer to that question. His vow to kill the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists offers another. A commander in chief in the U.S. system has vast powers, often beyond the reach of Congress or the courts to check. Mr. Trump could in fact order the CIA to resume waterboarding suspects — and worse — to the immense discredit of the country.

Why such a concern over terrorists who would be happy to slit the throats of the members of the WPEB?

“I’ve always felt fine about Putin. I think he’s a strong leader, he’s a powerful leader.”

Remember when Hillary trotted out her “reset button”? And called Bashar Assad a reformer? When she pledged support and said how great Mohamed Morsi was, a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization?

Some addition whining from the WPEB continues, till we get to the end

“Make America great again.”

It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,” the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,” U.S. wealth has been “stripped” away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.” To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.

Of course, he doesn’t have contempt. I dislike defending Trump, but, poll after poll show that people think the economy is not doing well. Really, though, this has nothing to do with anything the WPEB highlights, it’s the phrase itself: liberals hate America and all it stands for, and would like to tear it down.

We believe, as we have said, that Ms. Clinton is well-prepared to serve as president. But even voters who disagree — who believe that Ms. Clinton is unqualified or ethically distasteful — cannot realistically argue that she represents a danger to the republic.

Mr. Trump is such a danger. Only by forgetting or ignoring what he has told us could Americans decide otherwise.

Uh huh. A woman who put her convenience over national security. A woman who intentionally attempted to destroy women who credibly accused her husband of rape. A woman who used her position as Secretary of State as a means to enrich herself and her family through pay for play to her so-called charitable foundation, and used her charitable foundation to enrich herself while spending a whopping 6% on actual charity. She puts herself over country. That’s a danger.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Lays Out How Trump Can Win »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Wonky Media | 176 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Is Totally Worried About Hillary’s Male Tormentors

By William Teach November 2, 2016 – 3:57 pm

Because, apparently, in Frank Bruni’s world, Hillary is just so darned strong that she needs protection from Men. Doesn’t say much for her ability to serve in the most powerful position in the world

Hillary’s Male Tormentors

Weiner or no Weiner, Hillary Clinton is likely to be our next president.

But she can’t seem to escape insatiable men.

She married one — for better, for “bimbo eruptions,” for two terms in the White House, for impeachment.

She’s in the climactic week of a grotesque battle with another. If she prevails, his boasts of sexual aggression will partly be why.

And if she fails? Again there’s a priapic protagonist. The F.B.I. wouldn’t be examining Anthony Weiner’s laptop if he hadn’t invited so many strangers to examine his lap, and her fate is enmeshed once more with the wanton misdeeds of the weaker sex.

Over so many of her travails hangs a cloud of testosterone.

Oh, noes, testosterone. One has to wonder if Frank has turned in his ManCard yet.

But, much like Hillary’s server problems, she owns this. She decided to stick with a man who was credibly accused of sexual assault and rape, a guy who received oral sex in the White House while president. Hillary had to know what kind of person he was.

She hitched her wagon to Huma Abedin, who was in a relationship with Weiner, and decided to stick around after the first sexual allegations. Hillary let her stick around. Seriously, if Hillary can’t take the heat in the rough and tumble world of politics, perhaps she should get out. Much of this sounds like the old “she can dish it out, but she can’t take it” recipe.

Oh, and of course, this lays the foundation for calling all opposition to Hillary, should she win the presidency, as sexxxxxist, just like we’ve had almost 8 years of calling all opposition to Obama as raaaaacist.

Read: NY Times Is Totally Worried About Hillary’s Male Tormentors »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Hillary Clinton | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 2, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil meat sandwich causing desertification, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bizzy Blog, with a post on evidence that Team Hillary is sweating.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

We’ve “Freedom Of Speeched Ourselves To Death Or Something’

By William Teach November 2, 2016 – 10:00 am

Special Snowflake Rochelle Riley of the Detroit Free Press (think on that name as we get to the article) is having a hissy fit. Remember when liberals (she’s certainly a Hillary supporter, based on her articles) just told us to change the channel?

(Heat Street)  The Walking Dead may be the most violent show currently on television, particularly in light of its season opening episode—which featured popped eyeballs, mashed brains, and violent kidnappings all at the hands of a baseball bat-wielding maniac.

While normal Americans might respond by changing the channel, or by assailing the show in an emotional social media post declaring the season 7 opener their last episode ever, the nation’s social justice warriors responded by calling on the Federal government to use its policing power to boot TWD off the air for good.

Detroit Free Press cultural columnist Rochelle Riley told readers that the episode, which marked the first appearance of TWD comic book baddy Negan, should serve as a “wake up call” to the FCC to redefine what they consider “obscene” television content. Fantasy brain-bashing, she says, just “shouldn’t be allowed. Not even for money.”

She blamed television for shootings. I guess guns are passe’. Here’s where it gets really good

She even went so far as to blame TWD‘s television violence for school shootings, and claimed that on “nearly unfettered, almost entirely self-regulated cable broadcasting, you can buy your post-traumatic stress disorder all day long in a free America.”

“We have freedom-of-speeched ourselves to death,” she whined. “[A]nd then ask ourselves what has happened.”

Who would have thought that a TV series about zombies could possibly include gore and stuff? Personally, I do not tune in, because I find it boooooooring. I love zombie books, but, the Walking Dead is just tedious. But, that’s my choice.

Rochelle’s choice is for Congress to get involved and crack down on shows on basic cable, because changing the channel isn’t enough to protect her from content she doesn’t care for (why was she watching the show in the first place, if she doesn’t like the gore? She states that she’s watched the whole thing since the beginning) and her own little Safe Space.

Obviously, like any good little liberal these days, Rochelle is unhappy with this whole 1st Amendment thing when it contradicts their own feelings.

Read: We’ve “Freedom Of Speeched Ourselves To Death Or Something’ »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Very Concerned That Their Cult Could Be Dying Out

By William Teach November 2, 2016 – 7:21 am

Of course, rather than blaming their unhinged, cult-like movement, which is short on actual science and long on looking into crystal balls, they blame….

(Daily Caller) Environmentalists believe the climate change movement is losing political muscle and getting clobbered during elections by “a well-funded denial machine.”

“We have regressed to a bar so low that it’s practically touching the ground,” climate activist Chloe Maxmin wrote Monday in The Nation.

And part of the reason for the low bar, according to Maxmin, is that Republicans and climate skeptics are making headway in their attempts to sway public opinion on global warming. She chalked up the climate movement’s pitfalls to a lack of organization and the inability to deal with ridicule global warming.

I’d personally love to be getting some of that sweet, sweet, denial cash. I’m sure that most who blog about ‘climate change’ would love some, as well. Alas, it doesn’t pay, it’s just a passion. In my case, a passion against the forces of the authoritarian/fascistic forces of the Left.

Seriously, though, organization? Warmists have huge corporations and large moneyed interests, Hollywood figures (who’re climahypocrites), Democrats, and governments behind them. They get the money.

What they don’t have is the science. They don’t have the facts. They are utterly humorless, and are nasty. And hypocrites. Many take umbrage with my constant refrain about Warmists not practicing what they preach, but, that matters. When people look at an issue and see those who pushing it being utter hypocrites, it’s hard to take those people seriously as being truly concerned. If you’re overweight doctor is telling you to eat better and lose weight, do you listen?

If your mechanic tells you to take better care of your car, and they’re driving an old beater with a bad transmission, do you listen?

If someone who smokes tells you to stop smoking between hacking coughs, do you listen?

President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are not helping matters, Maxmin believes, mostly because they make favorable comments about fracking. The former secretary of state also appears to use climate change talk as a weapon against Republicans, she wrote, rather than something that has placed earth on “the brink of irreversible catastrophe.”

Your average citizen tends to tune out prognostications of doom and gloom, especially when they are far flung, and all their other prognostications have failed.

She pointed to evidence showing that environmental policies made up a total of 14 minutes and three seconds during presidential debates in 2000, and only 5 minutes and 14 seconds in 2004. The number of mentions about climate change policies nosedived in 2012. Talk of global warming simply does draw the kind of attention that it did in previous elections.

Because, really, ‘climate change’ is a minor issue which ranks low on lists of concerns.

A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries in February found that less than 10 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent.

Another poll conducted in November by Fox News found only 3 percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern. The Fox News poll came out just before Obama met with world leaders in Paris to discuss an agreement to reduce worldwide carbon emissions.

Bread and butter issues will always move people, while a nebulous issue pushed by hypocrites, which seems to revolve around increasing taxes, causing people’s cost of living to rise dramatically, restricting modern conveniences, and restricting freedom and liberty, while giving government more and more power, all with junk science as its basis, is an eventual loser.

Read: Warmists Are Very Concerned That Their Cult Could Be Dying Out »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Takes Big Lead In NC As Enthusiasm For Hillary Fades

By William Teach November 2, 2016 – 7:02 am

Just imagine Trump had run a better campaign. That, coming out of the Republican convention, his focus had been primarily on Hillary, Democrats, their policies, and his own policies. That he’d avoided attacking Republicans, and, instead, woo’d those who were fence sitters and #NeverTrump. That he’d avoided all those little spats with citizens. Minimized his war with the media. Just doing that, imagine where he would have been since. We aren’t even talking about things like fundraising, opening campaign offices, get out the vote efforts, etc. Because with one week to go, we get

(WRAL) With a week to go until Election Day, Republican Donald Trump has seized control of a tight presidential race in North Carolina, according to an exclusive WRAL News poll released Tuesday.

SurveyUSA polled 659 people statewide Friday through Monday who have already cast their ballots or are likely to vote in the election and found Trump with a 51 to 44 percent lead over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points.

In a WRAL News poll released three weeks ago, Clinton led Trump 46 to 44 percent.

The latest poll was conducted after the FBI notified members of Congress that it was reopening an investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Meanwhile, an Elon University Poll released Tuesday that was conducted before the FBI announcement found Clinton and Trump in a dead heat in North Carolina.

That right there is a pretty big change. But, is it a case of too little too late? Or, are there enough who haven’t voted that could make the difference in the states that Trump must win to get to 270? Hot Air has a good breakdown. Back to the article

Almost a third of respondents in the WRAL News poll ranked trustworthiness as the most important consideration in voting for president. Positions on issues were rated most important by 40 percent, while experience and character were far behind at 17 and 8 percent, respectively.

Of those ranking trustworthiness most important, 83 percent favor Trump. He also wins among those most concerned about issues, 52 to 43 percent. Clinton was favored by 93 percent of those most concerned with experience, and she doubled up Trump among voters concerned about character, 58 to 26 percent.

Trump has also reduced Hillary’s 12 point lead with women down to 7, while increasing his male support from a 9 percent lead to a 23 percent lead. And, increasing his lead among 50+ people and keeping his slight lead with the younger crowd.

Clinton’s sizable lead in North Carolina’s metro areas also has eroded since early October. Her 64 to 27 percent lead among urban voters three weeks ago is down to 53 to 43 percent, and her 9-point lead in the suburbs is now a 2-point deficit. Meanwhile, Trump has extended his lead among rural voters from 18 to 26 points.

It’s the enthusiasm gap. As ABC reported, Trump has taken a 1 point lead in national polls

Trump now leads Clinton by 8 points in the share of voters who are very enthusiastic about their choice as of Friday. But compared with past elections, it’s low for both of them — 53 percent for Trump, 45 percent for Clinton.

Strong enthusiasm for Clinton has lost 7 points since the start of tracking, especially Friday through Sunday. This is possibly an effect of the renewed controversy over her use of a private email server while secretary of state. Trump’s strong enthusiasm has held steady in tracking, which started Oct. 20.

Trump is a not very nice person who tends to get in spats. Hillary is a despicable person who has used her position to enrich herself off the back of her so-called charity, engaging in pay for play while abusing her office while Secretary of State. She’s lied to the families of those killed in Bengazi to their faces, denigrating them when they called her on it, while also lying to the American people as a whole. She’s put her own convenience over national security. She’s sold out American interests. And, let’s face it, she’s not very personable.

Now, just imagine Trump had run a better campaign from the start. We might have been talking about Trump flipping Blue states, rather than having to go into the last week on a hope and a prayer that there really are tons of secret Trump voters.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump Takes Big Lead In NC As Enthusiasm For Hillary Fades »

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Hillary Clinton | 7 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove