idk why I keep posting since discussions like this never lead anywhere but swoop do you think it's harder to be a man or a women in western societies? Women by every metric imaginable have a much easier life in society but we are constantly bombarded with the notion that they face extreme opposition at every turn in life. Every single law benefits women by a huge margin. Men suicide rates are much higher and their quality of life in general is lower. I could keep listening **** but can someone explain to me how women have it harder in western societies?

What's funny to me is that the only race that faces real racism at every turn in society are Asians yet nobody ever speaks about them and they still succeed. What's up with that?

It varies

In Australia, people talk about racism against Asians/Aboriginal people since they're a far more 'common' minority group to encounter and we barely have any black or hispanic people here - but in America most racism is directed towards black or hispanic people so that's the conversation instead

Men and women have it tough in different ways. There's a lot of misogyny around especially in business etc, and women do have to worry about being sexually assaulted etc when men don't really, obv family law is skewed heavily towards women and against men, and attractive women are often given free legs up in society (that unattractive women don't get)

I'd say it's about a tie in western society, women have more of an 'intrinsic' value in that they have a lower floor they can fall to in soceity (there's more of a network in place to help women who have fallen through the cracks) but it's also harder for them to hit the ceiling as well (eg rise to the top in business or whatever)

Basically, if 'life' as a whole is a 1-10 scale, a higher percentage of women will fall in the 2-8 range for how 'easy' it is whereas more men will fall in the 0-1 or 9-10 range.

Incredibly attractive women tend to get the upper end of that range as well more easily, but they also do have to legitimately worry about being sexually assaulted etc which is a factor men don't have to think about

I don't think there's a major difference in terms of 'overall' how easy it is to be male or female, it's just men fall through the cracks more easily, but women may struggle to reach the absolute top (even in politics or whatever, I don't like Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton much but they were held to some standards a man wouldn't be etc in some areas)

I think there are definitely a lot more men at the very top and bottom of society and women are clustered more in the middle in the West. Not really qualified to give an answer beyond that

re why do white people tell minorities what they want? Idk, because white people are used to being on top probably through history in the west and we think we know what's best for everyone (collectively I mean)

I mean, conservatives and progressives both think they know best for 'other' people. Conservatives ban drugs, abortions, etc, progressives redistribute wealth, both sides have authoritarian tendencies at times, and libertarians have their own problems too, like abolishing the minimum wage or whatever on paper looks fine until you see the miserable practical effects of that on society's most vulnerable who absolutely do not want what libertarians think they want

'He's not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting' - Trump supporter

Some people really do just want to hurt the uppity minorities

Anecdote time - was drinking with a girl from the South in like 2011 (her sister was dating a friend of mine and he flew them out to Vegas). Things were going well until she out of nowhere unprovoked went on rant about how she could never date a 'lazy n*****' and how they cause all of society's problems etc. I was a fellow white person so I was 'safe' to rant to.

These people are real, this was a university educated middle class 'nice' girl from the South

For what its worth I don't think most people vote R specifically to spite minorities - but I do think a double digit percentage of Republican voters do (vote Republican specifically because they dislike black/hispanic people or muslims or LGBT people etc). Look at the ridiculous trans-baiting these bathroom bills were on about. I've met all of one trans person in my life. Ever. It's not a 'real' issue at all but it was used to demonise an 'other' group as scary and dangerous. The right does that all time time, look at the literature they sent out during the gay marriage debates in both aus/usa, the evil gays are coming to recruit your kids and turn them gay and ridiculous **** like that.

You only have to look at the racial profiling that the police force does to see racism against black and hispanic people is a real issue and not surprisingly the people rushing to defend the white cop who shot the unarmed black kid are almost always Republicans

I mean, google 'The Southern Strategy'. Nixon specifically won the south for the Republicans by appealing to racists the same way Democrats won the black vote by passing the civil rights legislation. Ask a few dozen minorities whether they think Donald Trump is a racist. He is the current leader of the Republican party. Asking minorities themselves for their own opinion is going to get you your answer.

Yes, the guy who publicly dated a black woman for years and is married to an immigrant is a racist. Totally makes sense!

Also, this rigged voting machine insanity is QAnon levels of crazy.

Carry on here.

Load all the trump you want if you think he wins none of us are stopping you

No reason to tie money up for a year atm when I'm gonna be getting between evens and -200 on the d in like nine months time. Of course the race dynamics could change but if they stay as they are now and a high turnout election is likely the d is the fav. If trump looks more likely to be re-elected I obv won't bet on whoever his opponent is.

Most people's minds are made up on trump. He can win a low turnout election absolutely but he can't win a high turnout election.

I'm definitely going to listen to a guy who said Trump had a 0% chance of winning.

what in tarnation are you disagreeing with me here?

Deval Patrick has some serious baggage

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/14...-sex-offender/

He's drawing dead on day one too - can add him to the fade pile of Gabbard, Clinton and Bloomberg as well as the long-dead campaigns of the likes of Gillibrand

In any case with a year to go there's absolutely no reason to fire stuff that won't grade for ages now unless it's on high ROI underdog spots (like when Warren was 6% early in the year) - I probably won't take a position on anything until the week of the Iowa caucuses at least.

I know this seems right and with the media and everyone else bashing you over the head with it, I cant blame anyone for thinking it. But it isnt true.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-harvard-prof/

And thats from a black harvard professer who admitted it was the biggest surprise of his career. Cops interact with black people way, WAY more often than they do with white people so of course the raw numbers will look skewed.

As far as I can tell, we are disagreeing on the % of rednecks that choose their policies based on racist sentiments. I am arguing that the vast majority of them don't choose their policies based on racism. My understanding is that you are arguing it is perhaps a moderate %, but not a "huge %".

I think we agree my man

Nice.

That’s some terrible logic. Since he’s married to a woman does that make him no longer a misogynist? After all a misogynist views woman as below themselves.

He was charged for being a racist landlord.

Spot on Bukafax

Non racist people love to call mexicans rapists, say hispanic judges can't be unbiased in their cases and specifically mark the applicants of black people trying to live in their buildings, lol

I mean, from a betting perspective it's irrelevant whether he's racist or not, it matters more how he is perceived than the reality, but people arguing he's not racist because of melania or herman cain or whatever are just using a variation of the 'but i have a black/gay/mexican/muslim friend' defense

A very large percentage of racist men would still have sex with a black or hispanic or asian woman given the opportunity or whatever race it is that they dislike obviously inferences can't be drawn from that especially since Melania is basically a trophy wife who mostly lives apart from him and who he cheats on etc

I have no idea why all these Ds are getting into the race late when they have no chance. Deval Patrick works for Bain capital ffs and has me too and abuse of power issues over the handling of his brother's case and Bloomberg is an old white billionaire who isn't even popular among the Democratic base. Short of Michelle Obama getting in the race which is never happening none of these late entrants are going to make a splash beyond the ads that Bloomberg can buy that'll never get him the nomination

I'm still somewhat surprised Cory Booker stalled out and never got to a legit 5%+, I never expected him to get the nomination but I did think he'd possibly poll at 7-8% at some point and he just never really did. Kamala had her chance and blew it because it turns out she's an offputting narc but I thought Booker might briefly break into the top tier and it seems like it's too late for that now. I guess with Kamala and Booker floundering and Biden potentially fading I see why Patrick thinks he has a chance (take Biden's moderate minority support since for the most part minority moderate voters don't like Buttigieg, win South Carolina and launch from there) but he's absolutely the wrong candidate.

I do think Booker is the only candidate trading at 1% on Predictit who has a non zero chance of the nomination, it might be under 1% but he has a better chance than Gabbard, Bloomberg and at least equal to Patrick

As off putting as Kamala is in certain ways as well she might be actually around the 2% she's trading at too, although I think too many people's minds are made up. Her only path goes through South Carolina, becoming a moderate and Biden's complete collapse and probably Buttigieg's collapse too but she does have the benefit of the media making her out to be a 'top tier' candidate etc if something happens to change her news cycle. It is pretty unusual that Booker and Harris combined are trading at the same percentage as Gabbard who has absolutely zero percent chance to be the nom.

And this is why Trump was elected and the internet is not representative of what people believe. Politardia was basically run by fascists who crushed any viewpoint they did not believe.

Good luck. You certainly need it with the analysis here.

If elizabeth warren is the democrat nominee, President Trump will be reelected

You can take that to the bank

This I very much agree with. If she gets the nom Ill def be looking to get in on trump to win. Are there futures odds for potential trump vs warren? If not, what would you think the fair line would be?

Warren has inexplicably tanked over the last month on Predicitit. She was trading at 50c about 6 weeks ago and now down to 29c. The traders are probably thinking along these same lines about her electability.

I don't know what the Dems are going to do, Biden has continued to have weird gaffes, everybody seems kind of lukewarm on Warren. I feel like Buttigieg could start making a run here late. He has been more moderate lately and his poll numbers seem to be improving as a result.

Warren v. Trump would be 55%-45% Warren favored

Is that 55/45 your guess or thats what out there?

It's my guess but it's based on what is out there.

lol reading these responses has blown my mind

How do people like swoop exist in this world? Why do you hate yourself so much? It wasn't your choice to be born white. It's ok to be white.

This just reminded me of the protest that happened in Australia where a load of white people protested against the refugee status of white South Africans. Which other group in the world would actively protest against helping their own people?

Black refugees are OK but white refugees are not. truly mind blowing

Buttigieg leading in a recent Iowa poll:

Interviews conducted November 8-13, 2019 by telephone with 500 likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa.

Buttigieg 25%
Warren 16%,
Biden/Sanders 15%
Klobuchar 6%
Booker/Harris/Gabbard/Steyer/Yang 3%
Bloomberg 2%


I just put in a bet for him to with the Dem nod at +400

Kamala Harris, polling at 3 percent, hearing calls for campaign manager's resignation

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kam...rodriguez-iowa

She never recovered from the Tulsi attack, easy to forget now how she was the unanimous winner of the first debate.

I have no idea what you're talking about I don't hate being white or anything else about myself, obviously white South Africans being displaced by violence should be considered for asylum status the same as anyone else fleeing violence etc you're equating holding progressive views in general (me) with being one of the socialist alliance university students who complain the greens are too far right etc.

Noting that it's pretty easy to be a straight white male in western society in general is just noting the obvious, yes, obviously there are areas where men are disadvantaged like family courts and lack of social services to support men compared to women, but saying it's clearly harder in general to be male than female in the west or harder to be white than an ethnic minority or harder to be straight than gay is just ******ed. Uhoh, my fringe leftist credentials I said ******ed.

I hold plenty of centrist/centre-right positions (on Irsael; Islam, etc) i'm just on the political left on more issues than the political right, especially by American standards because the Democrats are a fairly centre left party by global standards (I mean their last 2 presidents were Clinton and Obama who are hardly left wing ideologues) whereas the Republican party is a hard-right party basically everywhere else in the west and Trump is obviously a complete basket case even people on the political right everywhere else in the world know that. Right wing positions on a ton of issues are morally reprehensible (lol usa healthcare #1 and wheee lets go start some wars for the military industrial complex etc), but yeah, conservatives can be right about some things, occasionally. I mean, tariffs and economic protectionism are ****ing stupid, yet somehow the current Republican party has abandoned free trade which should be a major party of any conservative economic platform and one of the few things I think they're correct about when it comes to economic issues. Trump is a ****ing disaster and i'd happily vote for Tony Abbott (Australia's both worst and most right wing recent PM) over him in a heartbeat. Mitt Romney was right and Obama was wrong about Russia being a major geopolitical threat - conservatives can be right sometimes and i'm fine with saying that.

Anyway rant about personal politics aside...

Yes, Warren is very far left etc but even she is a favourite against Trump in a h2h matchup and yes when we get closer to the election you'll all have your chance to bet against me on that at market prices with escrows etc if she wins the nomination

Kamala was part killed by Tulsi (who herself is hated by the D base) but she also killed her own campaign by going overboard portraying Biden as a racist when anyone sane know he isn't. Democrats mostly like Joe Biden as a person, the party is just slightly to the left of him on too many issues and he's really bad at running for President. I don't know if it's possible for an ex prosecutor to win the Democratic nomination anymore moving forward, at least while the American police force/legal system remain the way they are now.

Buttigieg seems to be on the verge of capturing the moderate lane but unless Biden actually drops out I don't like +400 there's no path for Buttigieg to go all the way yet without Biden dropping out, Iowa is an all-white midwestern state and Buttigieg has all educated white support/moderates only, he needs Biden to drop out at the very latest after Iowa to have any shot at all (and he also needs both Warren and Sanders to stay in after New Hampshire and probably after Super Tuesday to split the leftist vote). I think he'll really struggle to appeal to black and hispanic voters and to the less-educated portion of the working class.

My gut says Buttigieg will trade higher than 20% where he is now on Predictit at some stage but that he won't get the nominee because he can't expand his constituency beyond white moderates who aren't in Biden's camp. He does seem to be on the verge of becoming the establishment candidate if Biden fails though but I would still take Warren at 25% over Buttigieg at 20% all day if we're looking at the top tier. Warren DEFINITELY wins the nomination at least a quarter of the time. Not typing up large chunks of my roll for months on it or anything but I think she's value again finally

Buttigieg will trade as high as 30+ a lot especially if he wins Iowa (he's drawing dead if he doesn't win Iowa), but I prefer taking Buttigieg to win Iowa over wins the nomination at a much worse price because there are a ton of scenarios where he wins Iowa but not the nomination and no scenarios where he doesn't win Iowa but wins the nomination - if Warren wins Iowa it's just over (she'll win NH then probably NV and then Sanders probably drops out to endorse her and it's just over). If Biden or Buttigieg win Iowa, then Warren or Sanders win NH, then super tuesday splits multiway then we're in for a long campaign season. To be honest if Buttigieg wins Iowa I think he's still well under 50% to win the nomination but if Warren or Biden does they're guaranteed to lock up their left or moderate lane and be one of the final two dems standing.

I think Warren still wins the nomination close to half the time, and Biden hangs on to the establishment lane often enough through winning SC that Buttigieg doesn't get the nomination. He needs Biden to drop out before Super Tuesday to have a chance, and even if his support fades it'll be hard for Biden not to stay in until SC at least then if he finishes first or second he'll be tempted to stay for Super Tuesday

If Bloomberg or Deval Patrick do end up running they'll siphon off 1-3% of the moderate vote each as well.

Yang's the only not top tier candidate with room to grow but I think he's running out of time he needs to be polling at more like 7-8% after this next debate or it's just too little too late - my gut is to fade him at 8% but he has upside, Bloomberg and Hillary are both 8% too and drawing dead so there's no reason to fade Yang at that price when there are two candidates with far less equity at the same price

Bloomberg, Hillary and Tulsi combine to 20% on predictit markets with like 1 percent combined equity which is pretty lol

That's not what you are arguing in this thread thou. You clearly seem to hold the belief that it is so much harder for them that government intervention is required to make it a level playing field when by most metrics it doesn't seem to be the case. The average income of a lot of minorities that come to America (chinese,indian,african,etc) end up having a higher average income than the white population. So much for racism right?

Anyways it will be funny in a few years when America becomes a majority mexican country and you will realise that white people are the most tolerant people in the world. Name one non white country that is less racist and more tolerant of minorities. Just one please.

Glad this thread is totally focused on betting and not what a bunch of weirdos believe about politics!

Atleast the voting machine fraud, while baseless and even crazier then QAnon (atleast the core idea of a global pedophile ring frequented by elites was accurate since Clinton, Epstein, Prince Andrew, etc are all pretty much obv guilty), has something to do with betting. Arguing over identity politics is something so weird that Peterson won't even address it.