( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

I didn't vote this time. I can better appreciate the effectiveness of voter suppression tactics now.

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

Goofy, the voter he added is ec_outlaw, who had self banned for a while, now posting on a new account that is his old name spelled backwards. I assume ec had dozens of posts in OOT in 2018.

The funny thing about canceling all of the votes after Len's PM campaign is that it garnered more votes for AOC's opponent by people annoyed by getting spammed, yet AOC still continued to increase her lead in overall votes and take the lead in votes that Lektor wasn't able to DQ.

This left him no choice but to go back to an earlier point of the competition when AOC had a huge lead in actual votes but not in Lektor approved votes, and announce that's when voting ended. He actually said the three days of votes after that point but before the polls closed shouldn't count because people had already had plenty of time to vote if they wanted to, and then he retroactively cancelled the last three days of the poll.

( twitter | raw text )

I'd snap take 100:1 that she's elected or re-elected in 2028, the problem would be escrow etc. I'd take those odds right now for at least $2K if we had a crystal ball and could settle immediately.

( twitter | raw text )

Fake news

Oh, in that case she should be DQ'd. I'll let Lektor know.

You be sure to do that

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

( twitter | raw text )

this is amazing

( twitter | raw text )

You read that backwards. In this scenario you'd be laying 100:1. That is for every $100 you bet on AOC, you win $1 if she is elected.

Victor said he'd bet AOC at any odds. Betting $100 to win $1 qualifies as "any odds".

Of course Victor's not actually going to take that bet for the same reasons he didn't the last time he made a similar claim. And we've already dissected how seriously such things should be taken, so no need to do it again.

I don't know what they've done historically with posters on new gimmick accounts where the new account doesn't meet post requirements - but for the record, the Beer voter who Lektor inexplicably reinstated is jaymajik, who has only 1 post on all of 2+2 since 2011 (and it was not in OOT).

It would seem most reasonable to me that if you have an obviously eligible account and an ineligible one, you should vote with only the eligible one.

is english your first language? implied in my bet was any odds that get offered not any odds you can think of off the top of your head.

when someone says, I will take the Pats at any odds, they dont mean a mirrion to 1. they mean whatever odds the sports book offers.

like, this isnt that hard to figure out. I suggest you figure out how to not be so lacking in intelligence that you arrive at such idiotic conclusions and then feel the need to relay them to the forum.

This is truly amazing.

I remember Victor putting up 3k of his money to give me 30-1 on the Mavs back in 2010. Point being he's pretty much the polar opposite of you clowns, which is what you want to be, as you are being insufferable nits. Secondary point is that since Mavs won it all a year later, it must have been a pretty sick bet by me.

I’m turning into a LenC fanboy.

I suggest you learn to read better. In both of my posts it should have been obvious to anyone that what you intended is a perfectly valid way to interpret your post. Here's what I wrote right after your first post

So, to make it perfectly clear, the reason why you won't take that bet is because it's obviously not what you meant. FFS, man. We just did this like a month ago.

Moreover, the alternate that you mention is also a another way to interpret it, but almost certainly not what you meant. And someone nitty could call you out on that. And then we can have a two page argument about that. We've already done that. I suggest you go back and read that to refresh your memory.