algernon

You would make $5150 (plus your original bet back).

I just wanted to point out, the odds are pretty significant for all of you guys to go make some pretty serious money right now. 1 Donald Trump wins Election +515 2 Hillary Clinton wins Election -730 If I had the faith you guys do this would now be the time, never has the payout been this high on Trump.

Anthony T. Podesta, commonly known as Tony Podesta, is an American lobbyist best known for founding the Podesta Group. Podesta has lobbied for a variety of groups, including Bank of America, BP, and Egypt in addition to political campaigns such as Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton. Summary of the "Spirit Cooking" ritual and wikileaks links - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-05/spirit-cooking-wikileaks-publishes-most-bizarre-podesta-email-yet More into the life of "Tony" Podesta - http://linkis.com/archive.is/Cgetu The Podesta wikileak emails have a lot of strange food references, this has been circulating around as the decoding of it - "hotdog" boy "pizza" girl "cheese" little girl "pasta" little boy "Ice cream" male prostitute "walnut or nuts" person of color "map" semen "sauce" orgy Good bit of information compiled on the above. http://wearechange.org/internet-fire-speculation-podesta-emails-contain-code-child-sex/ Here are some direct wikileaks links - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10037 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/30613

http://www.gainesvillecoins.com/ http://www.apmex.com/ I like the Buffalo 1oz pieces Gainesville Coins sell, they mint it and it has the lowest spot price of any 1oz piece I've found. Sometimes Apmex will have their Apmex branded coins on sale which are comparable to Gainesville Buffaloes. Apmex also sells some nice Sunshine Mint 1oz pieces. If you go with American Eagles you will pay a spot premium, sometimes $3 over spot. Whereas the Buffaloes or Apmex coin might be 79c over spot. To get the lowest advertised spot price you have to buy a minimum, it's usually on a sliding scale. You also have to pay with a check or bank wire. Credit card purchases add quite a bit to the spot price. There is no registration required nor price controls. I know someone who purchased $30,000 using a bank wire and they sent a box UPS'ed to their house (signature required).

I'm always one to appreciate a well reasoned argument, especially for someone whose first post is "gone". I would like to point out we also thought the same thing during the initial investigation, because her crimes, when held to the same standard as everyone else that they've put in prison, would have landed her in jail but it didn't... After seeing building #7 collapse at free fall speed due to an "office fire", which has never happened before, or since to a steel building, and people bought that... Then Obamacare held up by the supreme court as constitutional because the government has the authority to "levy taxes" and the "fine" is considered a tax... And of course the last "won't recommend indictment" by the FBI... I'm following the trends here and saying nothing will come of this, and she will be elected president in a mere 4 days. We shall see.

Article might not have any merit, doesn't really matter though. It's pretty well established there are child sex rings in high level politics. Weren't some people killed in the UK for attempting to expose this stuff? You have some well documented "conspiracies" about things like Bohemian Grove, where they have politicians/presidents go and perform compromising acts, homosexual/underage, while recording it for blackmail later. Here's a video by Mark Dice explaining it briefly, with a quote from Nixon - You also have the Breitbart story - http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/04/erik-prince-nypd-ready-make-arrests-weiner-case/ “They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

I don't understand your question or statement.

I'm assuming you're referring to online debates elsewhere than the present? Regarding the time it takes you to make the original argument, and the quick response therein, is the response well thought out? Why aren't you able to answer the arguments that might help sway the observers? Being ganged up on in online debates is pretty normal, especially if you're rational - considering I would say the majority are irrational. Try having a real life debate on spanking with people from the South. I was at a party one time with about 15 'friends', I brought up the topic of spanking. It started out as a 1 on 1 debate and soon enough everyone had joined in like sharks after a bloody piece of meat. It is somewhat of an odd situation debating 15 different people at once, as I'm making reasoned arguments and the focus shifts from one to another, spouting out their preconceived ideas - "WHAT IF THEY RUN INTO THE ROAD!?". The biggest thing I'd say regarding debating ignorant people, once you spend enough time doing it you can debate 99% of them quite effectively and quickly, none of them have original ideas "But without government, who would build the roads?". It's almost comical because it's like they have a script, yet they aren't even aware of it. I've heard the same argument so many times it's hard to keep from laughing at this point. Do you read and type quickly? I've found that extremely beneficial in online arguments, if you can let the ideas flow and type it as you think of them it makes it significantly easier. How much time do you spend absorbing the information you're trying to debate? If it's something you know vaguely about, and have to go and look up the facts it might be best to let those arguments go, and focus on the ones you know off of the top of your head. In my opinion you should only try and correct others to help observers come to the truth, and do so as time permits. I deleted Facebook about four years ago because I was finding myself spending too much time debating ignorant people. I literally couldn't log in without feeling compelled to offer the truth, spending hours on these topics. Maybe something was lost out there by me discontinuing the discourse, but I have other more important things to do.

I agree with you, and even though my term was technically incorrect, less government, just like a little pregnant, is a phrase most people understand. Less involvement, less regulations, less taxes, or whatever it might be which equals less burden.

Yes that's true, and when people try to argue that with me they don't get anywhere, because I don't support any politician or political office, I agree whoever they are using is generally corrupt as well. Of course if it's just something made up I'll debate it, just like if someone were to make up things about Hillary - the truth matters, so I cannot let untruths stand. A lot of people get on this whole team thing, R vs D, and when one brings up the transgressions of the other they have to defend their team, when you're not on a team it's a whole lot easier to have the discussion.

The best indicator of the future, is the past. I've pointed out in multiple instances of voting being ineffective at transitioning towards less state control, and more personal freedom. One thing that multiple people pointed out was that 'BREXIT' happened based on a vote, and that was an example of less government happening through a vote. My argument has always been the Brexit referendum was always just an advisory vote and held no legal standing, and I had serious doubts of it actually happening. And then I see this today - http://www.smh.com.au/world/britains-high-court-deals-blow-to-uk-brexit-hopes-20161103-gshn7w.html When we have an election like Obama/Romney the outcome is not relevant, because the 'choices' are the same. If Trump is truly a wild card, that stands to reduce the state power to a significant degree, he will not be allowed to achieve that.

That's nice, so did you vote down my post and not even participate in the poll? What's the deal with people voting stuff down?

Who do you think will win on Nov 8? This is not who you WANT to win. I am just curious who everyone thinks is going to win. Of course R leaning people will say Trump is going to blow it out of the water, and the D's will say Hillary is ahead. What is the opinion of the audience here, who do you think will win?

Looks like the Pipeline employees are infiltrating the protests and causing violence. Sound familiar?

I think in real world terms, the Clinton Foundation is more important to focus on than her emails. Sure the whole email thing should have landed her in prison, if the standards were universal for application of the law. But the Clinton foundation shows a true example of corruption often found in 3rd world countries, at an exponentially greater level. Then of course you could look at Haiti, and what the Clinton/Bush crime family has been doing to that country.