I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT trump is going to lose in November.

[Amy-Strange]

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2020, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

-

Before the start of the 2013 NFL season, I saw the Seattle Seahawks play the Atlanta Falcons in the playoffs, and after they lost, I suddenly knew the Seahawks were going to win the Super Bowl next year.

They did and beat Denver 43-8.

I didn't just have a feeling they were going to win, I KNEW they were going to win. I've never had that kind of premonition before, or since, until now.

I KNOW for a fact that trump is going to lose in November, and Biden is going to win big-time.

Remember, you heard it here first, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to vote, because I'm not that kind of guy.
=========

[PTWB]

1. Oh ffs

[Hoyt]

2. How did you feel about Clinton when she was leading in polls?

[Amy-Strange]

11. This knowing premonition is only my second one, but...

-

I did have a feeling about Clinton, which is different than knowing something for a fact, and it wasn't a good feeling either.
==========

[Hoyt]

19. Here's to your current premonition coming true.

[Amy-Strange]

29. Thank you, and...

-

I'm still going to vote and work hard to get rid of the guy.
===========

[JI7]

204. She was leading in popular vote but polls showed Comey hurt her

and I had a bad feeling ever since then.

[cayugafalls]

3. We need to act as if we are behind and work to make sure.

Volunteer as best we can, donate, etc...

I'll do what I can, but it will amount to phone banking and donations.

[Amy-Strange]

14. Absolutely agree.

[qazplm135]

4. what are the lottery numbers going to be?

I mean, if you are having feelings, let's use it to our advantage.

[Amy-Strange]

15. I didn't say I had a feeling...

-

I said I know for a fact and that's different.

Plus, I've only had this happen twice, and this is the second time.

Obviously, you're making fun of me, but that doesn't bother me, because a lot of people also made fun of me when I told them about the Seahawks.

You'll see that I'm right in November.
==========

[qazplm135]

16. I'll see you are right about something

every poll and most of the people on here think is a highly likely outcome?

[Amy-Strange]

31. To me it's not highly likely, but...

-

a fact, and thank you for your input.
===========

[Crunchy Frog]

37. Just by the laws of probability, there's a good chance you'll be right.

It doesn't mean that you've had some sort of supernatural revelation.

[Dream Girl]

32. You so clever!

[demmiblue]

38. Lol, typical.

[Dream Girl]

40. I wish I was smart like you!

[demmiblue]

44. Lol!

[qazplm135]

51. No

I just don't think I can see the future.

[Amy-Strange]

57. A lot of people can't, so...

-

you're not alone.
=======

[qazplm135]

71. no one can

so you are right, I'm not alone.

[Amy-Strange]

78. I'd be on your side if...

-

it hadn't happened to me.
=========

[qazplm135]

114. someone got something right

that's it.

Let's talk about an ex of mine. We broke up. Not fully negative, but not positive either.

We'd moved on.

One day like 2-3 years later she emails me. She has a "Feeling" there is something wrong with me. This feeling is clearly so strong that she reached out to someone she'd broken up with and had no contact with years earlier.

Was there something wrong with me? Nope. In fact, all things considered, I was doing pretty well at that moment. We all have our issues...could be career, could be romantic life, could be money...few people are completely happy...but all in all, given I was finally not poor lol I was in my legal career, doing fairly well, dating someone at the time, no one had passed, life was fairly good.

Now, if she'd emailed me with that "feeling" a couple of years later when my mom died, or during any breakup, or at a time when I lost my cat, she'd have been "right."

Then it would have been...man, how did she know? Did she sense something? She knew something was wrong and contacted me! But this moment she had that feeling and it was wrong. So, welp we think nothing of it.

But that's not how logic and reason work.

So you got a strong feeling, which turned out to be right. That's it. It's called coincidence. And it happens. In a random, chaotic world, it's BOUND to happen sometimes, because that's how chance and randomness work. Sometimes things line up.

[Amy-Strange]

119. What I know is not because of a strong feeling, but...

-

because I know for a fact that trump is going to lose.

It's the same kind of knowing that you have concerning the fact that the Earth goes around the sun, and not the other way around.

You have to experience it, but since you haven't, it's understandable that you're skeptical.

Science can't prove absolutely that anyone has a personality, but we all know it's true, because we've all experienced it.
=============

[qazplm135]

121. The concreteness of your belief

does not make it more "known."

And I have no idea where you got your last sentence from. A Personality is simply a definition of the collected EXHIBITED traits and patterns of an individual person. "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character."

So I have no idea why you think science can't prove that "absolutely" since the word as defined is simply about OBSERVED behavior.

[Amy-Strange]

125. It does for me, and...

-

I've taken a bunch of psychology courses in College, and they may be able to observe the results of personality, but they can't prove absolutely that it does exist, anymore than they can prove absolutely how we're able to think and know things.

We can observe the results, but we can't prove it.
=========

[qazplm135]

130. I still have no idea what you are talking about

the very definition of the word merely means "observed characteristics."

If you are trying to say WHY people have this personality versus that personality aka to say we don't fully understand how the human mind works yet? Then yes, you are right. It's a pretty hard nut to crack. So is consciousness which we as of yet cannot even completely define much less understand the mechanisms.

So what? The toughest nuts usually take the longest to crack. Doesn't mean we don't know how to crack nuts.

[Amy-Strange]

156. Show me your personality right now...

-

and I'm not talking about what you can observe, but what is actually causing you to do the things you do.
==========

[qazplm135]

165. that's not "personality"

Again, words have definitions and meanings.

I gave you the listed definition of the word. It's not about what causes me to do the things I do, it's literally about the things that I do that others observe.

So stop using that word to describe what you mean which is apparently more akin to what causes my actions.

And yeah, that's a tough nut, and we haven't figured that nut out. Yet.

We know about nature a little bit (genetics) and we know about nurture a little bit (environment) but no we haven't completely figured that stuff out yet. so what?

To say that we don't know everything there is to know about every animal and plant alive today (because there are undoubtedly millions of species left to discover), does not mean that we don't know a lot about animals and plants alive today. It's not a you know everything or you know nothing binary scenario.

[Amy-Strange]

168. I don't agree, but...

-

what else is new?
========

[qazplm135]

176. you dont agree with the dictionary?

I mean...

[Tipperary]

133. "Taken a bunch of psychology courses in 'College'."

Oookay.

[qazplm135]

136. I'm trying to engage positively here

too much mocking just closes minds.

I may be tilting at windmills but I just retired from the military and I have a little vacation time before I go back to the grindstone

[Amy-Strange]

157. Thank you, and...

-

I hope I haven't ruined your vacation so far.
=======

[hlthe2b]

5. I've had strong hunches a handful of times in life but...

thus far, I've only been right about 50% of the time. So, while I hope you are right, I will work as hard as hell as though you might not be.

[samsingh]

7. isnt 50% just chance?

[hlthe2b]

8. That's the point...

[samsingh]

9. ok

[coti]

22. No, it's a coin flip's chance.

Not just any chance.

[Amy-Strange]

12. Good plan!

[demmiblue]

6. Lol!

[NCjack]

10. what lotto numbers ...

[panader0]

13. Sorry, but I didn't hear it here first.

And your feelings about the Seahawks have zip to do with this election.
Anything can happen. I believe Biden will win, but there's no one who can state this as fact.

[Amy-Strange]

18. It's not a feeling.

-

To me it's a fact, like the election has already happened, but like I said, I'm not going to slacken off because of it.

I will vote, and I will work to get rid of trump.
========

[panader0]

25. How much did you bet on the Superbowl victory you KNEW would happen?

[Amy-Strange]

34. Unfortunately, I don't gamble, because...

-

I have serious gambling issues.
===========

[Dream Girl]

28. Oh just stop.

[Amy-Strange]

35. Stop what? n/t

[Dream Girl]

39. Not you, I was directing this at the belittling comes about lotter numbers, so dumb

I believe for and have had “knowings” as well.

[Amy-Strange]

43. It's not a feeling is it?

-

It's much, much more than that.

And I'm sorry for questioning your comment, but thank you so much for having my back.
===========

[Dream Girl]

58. No there is a difference between "knowing" and "feeling".

With knowing, you have no doubt. I’ve had it a few times. We all have latent psychic abilities and intuitive knowledge. Those dumb comments about lotto tickets drive me nuts. It doesn’t work like that.

[Amy-Strange]

61. Exactly

-

In a way, it's like you've already experienced what's happened, or got it from someone who's ahead of you in you're time line, and somehow they were able to send that knowledge back to you.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work for everyone, and that's why they're skeptical.

They make fun of us, because they've never experienced it, and think we're mentally deranged, but they're wrong!
=============

[Dream Girl]

68. See my post below.

[PTWB]

158. You don't have "latent psychic abilities"

Nor does anyone else. I can’t believe I’m reading this bunk.

[Dream Girl]

201. I'm not really interested in what do think or believe.

[PTWB]

230. That's fine.

You don't have to be interested. You still don't have "latent psychic abilities" - that is unscientific nonsense. It is religion. It is woo.

Next you'll be telling folks you don't believe in vaccinations, you do believe in homeopathic remedies and you want to sell folks essential oils to cure all their ailments.

[Amy-Strange]

231. Prove it

[PTWB]

233. Prove that you aren't a psychic?

Oh my goodness.

[Amy-Strange]

235. I'm not a psychic.

-

I just have faith that Biden will win.

What's wrong with that?
===========

[PTWB]

236. That isn't at all what you claimed originally.

[Amy-Strange]

238. Actually it is, but...

-

you can certainly believe what you want.
=========

[PTWB]

240. Not in my eyes.

You’ve walked back your “knowing” psychic premonition to simply having faith that Biden will win. That’s a big step back.

[Amy-Strange]

241. I never said it was a PSYCHIC premonition.

-

That was started by other people, and you just piled on with them, and I just went along for the ride.

Besides, I think having faith also means knowing that you're right, but like I said, you can believe what you want.

Also, I think your "sun" thread was funny.

Keep up the good work, because I really don't think you're a bully.
=======

[Dream Girl]

232. I'm not telling folks what to believe or not to believe (unlike you).

I definitely believe in lots of things you might describe as woo. And there is something to herbal medicine and essential oils. Where do think you modern modern comes from? Roots, twig, herbs and oils. Aspirin was as woo folk remedy derived from willow bark before it was synthesized. My guess is you are a white male. You seem to be dripping with intellectual superiority. But there are things other people have experienced are real. Who appointed you arbiter of truth anyway?

[PTWB]

234. Nailed it.

[qazplm135]

53. No, you haven't

You had a feeling that coincidentally came true and you assigned meaning to it while discarding and forgetting the times it didn't.

Just like people who see 1234 on a clock and those times stand out in their minds as some sort of repeating revelation while all the times they saw a different time on the clock are ignored or forgotten.

Basic human need to see patterns everywhere. It's hard wired.

[Amy-Strange]

56. Maybe, but...

-

how do you know this for a fact?

I believe her, because I've seen it happen myself.
========

[qazplm135]

75. Because I embrace logic, reason and science

Because before I believe something, I need evidence, facts, and I need to discount other possible alternatives.

You leap to the supernatural. I get it, it's nice to think there's something else out there. Some force or power. That we aren't just insignificant lifeforms who exist for a glimmer or time and then poof are gone.

Of course, that's not reality, but it's certainly scary and depressing or at least can be so I get the motivation to believe.

If it makes you feel better or makes life make more sense for you, great. But don't expect folks to believe you or get offended if we don't.

[Amy-Strange]

99. I have evidence, but...

-

obviously, you've never heard of parapsychology?

That's not my proof, but personal experience is.
==========

[qazplm135]

101. people have "personal experience"

with alien abductions, ghosts, demons, angels, past lives...

[Amy-Strange]

102. Obviously, you don't believe them either, and...

-

I kinda agree, but some of those cases are very, very hard to discount.
=======

[qazplm135]

107. not really

not when you apply the same rigorous scientific standard we apply to any other hypothesis.

Lack of knowledge of how something happened does not equate to evidence of the supernatural.

We know now that the sun is not eaten by an angry god and then spit out 3-10 minutes later. But for a long, long time, we did. Because we didn't have the information to explain it.

Eventually, we understood it completely. But I imagine there was an intermediate period, where people stopped thinking it was an angry God, but didn't quite understand about how eclipses worked either. They would have been right to look for a scientific explanation first, and a supernatural one only when every possible scientific explanation was exhausted (and probably not even then).

But sometimes, even the "unexplainable" has a perfectly non-supernatural explanation, we simply don't have the information, understanding, or knowledge to see it at the time. That doesn't mean those who assign a supernatural explanation are right.

Occam's Razor should be your lodestone.

[Amy-Strange]

115. Maybe, and...

-

I believe in occam's razor, but there are some cases that can't be so easily explained.

I don't blame you for being skeptical, but a lot of people throughout history have believed in many things until science proved them wrong.

Maybe some day, science will prove you wrong, but I still don't blame you for being a skeptic, because I think that it's the life blood of science.
================

[qazplm135]

117. yes SCIENCE

where's the science here?

Science has looked at this stuff, there ain't nothing there.

[Amy-Strange]

162. Parapsychology is a science.

-

You can even look it up.
==========

[qazplm135]

174. not really

you can take latin words onto something, that doesn't make it a science.

It's a field of study for sure, like cryptozoology. It's pseudo science.

Hey, I loved the TV show Fringe too...but most of that stuff was baloney.

[Amy-Strange]

178. Why not?

-

It uses the scientific method, so why not?
=========

[qazplm135]

183. with as much good nature as I can muster

I think we've established you are a bit...shaky on what the scientific method is and how it is used.

[Amy-Strange]

188. So let me get this straight...

-

you don't think parapsychology uses the scientific method?

I guess at this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree, because you obviously don't know anything about parapsychology.
========

[qazplm135]

190. lol

ok. I don't think you understand the scientific method very well so no I don't think we are going to agree on whether or not parapsychology uses it. And contrary to your belief, I understand the field well enough. I know what tests have been done in the past and the outcomes of those experiments. I know that no experiment with proper controls has ever presented even the slightest bit of evidence.

That's probably why the number of college-affiliated parapsychology "programs" in the US is down to not even enough to play a doubles tennis match.

[Amy-Strange]

193. That I'll agree with, but...

-

what about this part:

"Despite a persistent fascination with the paranormal, researchers following rigorous and reproducible scientific methods have yet to prove that psychic phenomena are real."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/parapsychology

Scientific methods were used.
=======

[qazplm135]

210. I can use scientific methods

to try and prove my unicorns carry light theory, and I will equally fail to prove it "using rigorous and reproducible scientific methods."

Doesn't make Unicorn Light Carriers a scientific theory. It just makes it a really bad hypothesis.

[Amy-Strange]

205. Some people think psychology is also a pseudoscience, but...

-

is it really?
============

[qazplm135]

211. it's a soft science

it uses scientific methods, and it has some validity, but it also has a lot of unknowns and it's a scientific field prone to making oversized predictions and assertions. It's less science than math or physics, but it is still, when done correctly, science.

It is not a pseudoscience though.

[Amy-Strange]

214. I agree, but...

-

a lot of people don't agree with us.
========

[qazplm135]

221. first of all no that's not true

second of all so what?

[Amy-Strange]

224. It is true.

[Crunchy Frog]

202. Not a science. A pseudoscience. n/t

[Dream Girl]

66. You obviously have never experienced is hence you desire to explain it away. I once had a reading

From a well known psychic. (She used to appear on local tv in Cleveland). This was remote reading by phone and she knew nothing about me except my birth date. She told me that I would live onthe west coast near the ocean, marry a white European man (I’m black) man who would be good to me, have one child and money would never be a problem. I didn’t really think much about it because as the time I was desperately trying to get in the Foreign Service and move to DC and then abroad. Her reading disappointed me. About two years later I moved to San Francisco ,later married an Irish man and had one child who is now 20. Money has never been a problem for us. My husband is very good to me (usually).😉

[Amy-Strange]

70. It is hard to believe something like that, but...

-

that didn't stop it from happening, did it?

I'm not a big fan of psychics, because most of them are crap, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN SOME OF THEM AREN'T REAL.

Anyway, thank you for sharing.
=========

[Dream Girl]

74. This psychic was well known, I think she may have done police work. It was so amazingly accurate

And I don’t see how it could have been explained as coincidence. She know absolutely nothing about me except that I was female and my birth date. She also told me a bunch things about my personality some of with didn’t like but were true. Those remember those details just that I didn’t like it. As I said, I was kind of disappointed because she didn’t tell me what I wanted to hear at the time.

[Amy-Strange]

77. It happened in the Ted Bundy case...

-

A psychic knew where one of his bodies was located, and led the police there.

Of course, a lot of people thought she was a nut case, but we know they were wrong.
==========

[Tipperary]

142. Link to this psychic in the Bundy case?

[Amy-Strange]

145. Crap, I'd have to search through my book on Bundy, but...

-

I will send you the source later, ok?
==========

[qazplm135]

155. was that a case about tasty German cakes?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Tipperary]

159. Ha, just saw that myself.

Been doing a lot of quarantine cooking and obviously my phone was going there...

[qazplm135]

72. lol

funny how psychics never predict things like assassinations, natural disasters, and whatnot.

No what they do is engage in cold reading and other things to fool people into thinking they have access to deep knowledge.

There's no such thing as psychics, no one can "see" the future.

[Amy-Strange]

79. It's not something you can turn on or off...

-

but I'd sure like to know how you know for a fact that all psychics are fake?
===========

[qazplm135]

106. Because for psychics to be real

everything we know about basic physics and science would have to be wrong.

We'd need a mechanism for information from the future to flow to the past, and directly into a human brain.
And given that the human brain follows the laws of physics, we should be able to beat an artificial device to capture this information flow. Heck, we should at the very least be able to detect this information flow as some sort of energy.
We'd also have to give up on the concept of free will, and randomness. The latter is a BEDROCK principle of quantum physics and science. Because if something is "destined" to happen, then randomness goes right out the window. And so does free will. And if it's not destined to happen, then how can you "know" it's going to happen?

In short, for psychics to be real, logic, reason, and basic science would all have to go out the window.

Furthermore, despite your claim that I haven't heard of parapsychology, quite the opposite. I know very much about it. I know that we have tried to test for various "psychic" abilities for almost 200 years now. Not once has a properly down scientific study even hinted at it being real, much less suggested a mechanism for how it would work.

You can't "see" something without light hitting your eyes, and your brain cannot receive information without an electrical impulse being generated (I'm way over simplifying it but you get the idea). That light or that impulse has to be generated by something else, which should be able to be tracked. They have studied brains of "psychics" and "non-psychics" to see if there are any differences to account for the former. Answer? Nope. Nada.

So you are left with three possible answers:

1. The supernatural. "God" did it and there is no science because "God" temporarily overruled the laws of physics so that "Susie" could read your future. (Oh and free will is an illusion).

2. Some whole new law(s) of physics that is not only unknown but renders a large chunk of the rest of physics just plain wrong. Quantum physics is wrong. Randomness is wrong. Newton's laws are wrong. Free will is wrong. Four fundamental forces of nature is wrong.

3. Psychics and psychic powers are not real.

Now, 1 is an obvious cop-out. 2 has zero evidence for it. Zero. Zero point zero repeating.

Which leaves 3.

[Amy-Strange]

111. We don't really know much about physics, and...

-

what we do know, doesn't really prove that premonitions ain't real.

Remember when almost no one believed in multiple universes, but now someone actually proved they were real.

String theory, or M theory, is another example.

Basically, all matter can be reduced to strings of energy, and no one knows for sure what exactly that energy can do.

It might be possible that it allows for real magic and knowing the future, but you're right. There really is no proof that this is possible, but there isn't any proof that it isn't.

Also, you should look into the science of parapsychology.

You'd be surprised at what they've already learned.
==========

[qazplm135]

120. I'm sorry but that's really really wrong

First, we know a ton about physics. Our understanding of physics is both wide and deep.

Do we know everything? Of course not. Do we know a helluva lot? Absolutely.

Second, that's not how science works. Nothing can prove a negative. It's not a scientific way of doing things.

By way of illustration, please prove that light isn't really carried by invisible unicorns that you cannot see or measure. Sure, they may look like photons, but that's just a shell, they are really invisible unicorns. Well, that's crazy talk you say. And I say yes, but prove that it isn't true. And of course, you can't, because you can't prove a negative.

So you are proposing things in reverse, you should be asking, what proof is there that premonitions are real, and what mechanisms allow them to happen, and how can we recreate it in a laboratory setting? The answers are nothing other than anecdotal statements, no mechanisms at all, and we have tried and failed to recreate it in a laboratory setting.

Multiple universes have not been "proven" to be true, neither has String Theory or M Theory. They are all hypothesis with varying degrees of evidence although mostly on the not a lot of it yet side of things. String Theory is barely a theory because it's hard to come up with actual experiments to provide prove for it, same with M Theory. Multiple universes is one possible interpretation of the double Slit experiment and quantum physics, but it's just one. String theory is but one theory on the fundamental state of matter and no, no one has "proven" that matter can be reduced to strings yet.

You are embracing far too much "woo" science, and not enough of the scientific method.

And parapsychology is not a science. It's a field of study, at best. With no scientific results. They've "learned" that you cannot reproduce psychic powers in a laboratory setting. They've learned enough that there are a grand total of TWO universities in the US left that even have a parapsychology department. The CIA learned enough that they stopped investigating it 50 years ago.

Finally, if there "isn't any proof that this is possible", then the only scientific and logically correct position is that it isn't possible, until such time as said proof becomes known.

[Amy-Strange]

123. We don't even know 1% of why physics does what it does.

-

All we have are laws and theories, but no one knows the real reason why gravity exist, and yet it does.
========

[qazplm135]

128. where did you come up with that number?

Second, laws and theories are all science is.

That's literally how it works.

It's like saying all we have in a democracy are laws and regulations. Yeah, that's how it works. What else would you expect?

Nope, we haven't cracked the mechanism behind gravity yet. But we know how it works. We know how it works so well we can calculate the motions of planets for millions of years into the future and track it millions of years to the past. We know how it works so well that we can adjust how time flows in different gravity wells so our GPS satellites don't go out of sync because they are traveling higher up in the Earth's gravity well and time moves ever so slightly faster up there than down here on the surface. We know how it works so well that we can send a probe up from the planet one day, and have it link up with another celestial body weeks, months or years later, and then loop it around that body to just the right speed to catch up with yet another one after that. We can detect and measure gravitational waves from two black holes merging BILLIONS of light years away.

But whether it is carried by a particle like a graviton, or simply a fundamental property of space time, or a field that permeates throughout the universe, nope, we haven't cracked that particular nut yet. But we have cracked that nut on the other three fundamental forces. And we've done all of that in the space really of about 300 years more or less.

So, again, I don't think you've had enough exposure to hard science to make a statement like that.

[Amy-Strange]

131. Just a guess, but even scientist will tell you...

-

that there's a lot they still don't know.
===========

[qazplm135]

135. saying

"there's a lot we don't know" is not saying "we don't even know one percent" nor is it saying "we don't know a ton of stuff."

[Amy-Strange]

180. Like I said, it was just a guess. n/t

[Dream Girl]

89. This was the one and only time I ever consulted a psychic.

I did it because I really, really wanted to go in the Foreign Service and was fervently hoping she would reassure me that I would get it. I never thought about moving to California, but about two years later a headhunter contacted me about a job in SF and the rest is history. European man (I’m African American)? One child? West Coast? Money not a problem? This psychic was very well known for her accuracy and I waited a few months for that reading. Of most most psychics are fakes, but not this wouldn’t. They don’t really see the future but somehow yet “hits”.

[qazplm135]

108. So let's break this down...

first of all, you had headhunters contacting you about a job. That suggests you were in demand, that suggests you have some education and training, which all comes together to suggest that "money not being a problem" was probably always going to be the case for you eventually. You probably came across as educated, able, and anyone "reading" you was going to see that.

Second of all, your average woman these days is statistically having less than 2 children in America, so you having only one child is actually fairly close to the statistical norm. So that's two things that had a pretty strong likelihood of happening.

Third, Black women are exponentially more likely to be involved in interracial relationships over the past 20 years or so. So, again, statistically, an educated, Black woman having a White husband is not really winning the lottery odds.

Finally, California is the fifth largest economy in the world. I don't know what your career is, but there are few careers that wouldn't have plenty of job opportunities in such a large and diverse state.

So yeah, you can somehow "hit" without seeing the future. Look at John Edwards. He was so "very well known for his accuracy" that he got his own national TV show. Or "Miss Cleo." Or a couple of others who later turned out to be frauds. They got "hits" too. A lot of them in fact. Enough to make them nationally famous.

[Amy-Strange]

113. That's a lot of coincidences, don't you think?

-

Too many to be just chance, in my opinion.
==========

[qazplm135]

116. nope not really

Let me ask you this...

We know that poverty is associated with poorer health, fewer educational opportunities, more run-ins with the police so more likely than not to have a criminal record, live shorter lives, have domestic and child abuse happen in their lives.

Now that does NOT mean that poor people suck, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that statisically socio-economics is related to where you live, and how your live goes. Not perfectly, people beat it. I'm an example of that. Grew up poor, with alcoholic parents, the whole sad list. But I was one of the lucky ones, with some hard work but also a lot of help and good fortune along the way.

But statistically, as a Black man who grew up in poverty, the odds are high for certain things in my history (even though none of those things are there in my case).

All of the things I listed are high probability events.

If the psychic had said, you will be living in Fiji, married to a Japanese man, with five kids, and all of that happened? OK, those are a string of low probability events that might have you going, boy, that was quite a call.

But a woman smart enough to have headhunters going after her? Probably not going to be hurting for money. She's also probably going to have a small family because education and socio-economic status correlate highly with that. California? Big state, big economy, lots of people move there. Black woman marrying a White man? If this happened in 1965 ok, that would be almost nil. But nowadays? Ain't a big deal, and again interracial dating is more likely at higher educational levels.

[Amy-Strange]

134. Maybe, but...

-

it's still a lot of coincidences to come true, and you can believe that's all they are, but that doesn't make either you or me wrong.
=========

[qazplm135]

137. I mean by definition

one of us is wrong.

This is a pretty binary outcome...either it was coincidence or precognition yes?

[Amy-Strange]

167. Well, if it makes you feel any better...

-

you're not wrong, but try arguing with people who think bigfoot doesn't exist.

It's like arguing with me, ha ha.
===========

[Amy-Strange]

255. You have to add the probabilities together...

-

not count them individually.

One of the predictions from DreamGirl's psychic might have a high probability of happening, but when you add all of them together, the probabilities shoot out of sight.

Read a book on probability. You'll see.
============

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Well, I hope you'll pardon me if I don't find your premonition

persuasive enough to rely on.

[Amy-Strange]

24. Doesn't matter.

-

I know for a fact that trump is going to lose, and you're non-belief won't change a thing.

Lots of people didn't believe me about the Seahawks either, and also made fun of me, but they were wrong.
=================

[Ms. Toad]

55. and if it had gone the other way they would have been right - putting you at 0 for 1

insteady of 1 for 1.

I hope you understand that promoting your gut feeling here does more harm than good, and that many of us who warned about complacency in 2016 are highly pissed at people intentionally or subconsciously trying to increase complacency as to this election.

[Amy-Strange]

60. But, it didn't, did it?

-

I was right, and they were wrong.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to vote or work hard to get rid of Trump, and no here should feel complacent either, but thank you for your input.
===========

[Ms. Toad]

67. You had a 50% chance of being right.

My basic point is that telling people Trump is going to lose - regardless of your firm belief he will, encourages the same complacency that was advocated here in 2016.

Stop it. Period. Enjoy your personal belief - but stop advocating it as reality.

[Amy-Strange]

73. Nope, I'm not going to be complacent, nor...

-

am I going to stop saying this, but I am going to vote and also work hard to get rid of the guy, and so should everyone else, regardless of my belief.

You might think that the Seahawks winning was because it was a fifty-fifty chance, but I know for a fact that it wasn't.
==========

[Ms. Toad]

83. The point is not whether YOU are going to be complacent,

It is your posting on DU (and likely other sites) that you KNOW is going to win which encourages others to be complacent.

Enjoy your fantasy "knowledge," but don't contribute to the atmosphere that existed on DU in 2016 - which was that everyone KNEW that Clinton would win and anyone who suggested otherwise was labeled a "concern troll" and dismissed. Some people who trusted those who asserted they KNEW voted for third parties. Some people viewed voting as a something to do if it was convenient because they trusted those who asserted they KNEW. Some people who trusted those who asserted they KNEW switched parties and voted for Trump in the primary because he would be so easy to beat.

So just stop it. Keep your fantasy knowledge to yourself, and don't risk contributing to a Trump victory by encouraging others to complacency.

As to your "knowledge" about the Seahawks - being right on a 50-50 proposition does not prove advance knowledge. Establishing your claim to advance knowledge to being right on a matter that could have gone either way is ludicrous. When you establish your prescience to a statistically significant relationship I'll pay more attention to your "knowledge."

[Amy-Strange]

84. How can I stop something that I've already done? n/t

[Ms. Toad]

86. Don't do it again, and stop defending it. n/t

[Amy-Strange]

90. I'm not going to start another thread like this, but...

-

I'm also not going to stop defending my position.
==========

[Ms. Toad]

92. Then when Trump wins, you can pat yourself on the back

for your contribution.

[Amy-Strange]

93. I don't want to pat myself on the back. I want trump to lose. n/t

[Tipperary]

140. We do not even know if this Seahawk story is even true lol.

Might be fun to bookmark the thread, but I really cannot be arsed, ya know?

[qazplm135]

147. I'm going to assume

that they had this feeling that came true, and to them, it was a "knowing."

Do I think it was a "knowing?" Of course not. Do I think they are lying about it? Not really.

[Tipperary]

179. I see your point.

Great thread, anyway!

[Amy-Strange]

185. That's because you don't believe in premonitions, but...

-

I'm not lying about this.

As a matter of fact, I was never a fan of Seattle, even though I live here.

Instead, I'm a big-time Patriots fan.
===========

[qazplm135]

191. don't think you are lying

just wrong and prone to believing in woo.

Being a Patriots fan makes it worse but doesn't make you a liar.

[Amy-Strange]

194. But, you can't prove me wrong, and...

-

isn't that what should also add?
===========

[qazplm135]

223. annnnd

we are back to this nonsense again.

I'm out.

[Amy-Strange]

228. Exhausting isn't it, but...

-

have a nice vacation anyway.
===========

[Ms. Toad]

149. Amusing -

But if Trump wins (proving the OP didn't really KNOW), that's not a good outcome.

So I'll go for propping up a fantasy, since that means Biden wins.

[Tipperary]

181. I am with you on that .

Cannot imagine the alternative.

[Amy-Strange]

184. You're right, but...

-

my friends believe it's true, because they were there, and that's all I need to know.
==========

[qazplm135]

76. If I say tomorrow that

Trump will have a heart attack and die...given his poor health, stressful job, poor diet, massive weight and whatnot, I'd have a fairly decent chance of being right. Not because of mystical powers but because that's an outcome that has a reasonable chance of occurring.

But somewhere, some "psychic" will "predict" it. And they will be "right" too.

[Amy-Strange]

80. Maybe, but...

-

that doesn't in anyway prove that all psychics are fake.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.
============

[qazplm135]

85. all psychics are fake

most of them know they are fake, some of them probably believe, a tiny portion, but most of them do it because there's always going to be a gullible group of people willing to believe and spend money on it (and another group who will spend money not because they believe but because it's silly fun).

How does it work? Where do the visions come from? Why don't they predict major events clearly? Where were the coronavirus predictions?

See, how science works is, I don't "prove that all psychics are fake," psychics have to prove that they are real. And despite repeated actual experiments designed to give them that chance, it's not happened once. Same with ESP, telepathy, telekinesis, and all of the other magical beliefs out there. There's no soul that weighs a certain amount and leaves your body and gets measured. There's no near death visits to the afterlife. No aliens. No magic. There's science, logic and reason.

If there WERE a way to see into the future, it would require a scientific manner to do it.

Meanwhile, IF the future can be predicted and as you say "known" THAT means the future is immutable, which means you and I have no free will, we will do what the future says we will do and we are just robots/machines. You should really take a deeper look at the ramifications of your beliefs, because I'm guessing you don't believe that last bit.

[Amy-Strange]

87. Like I said...

-

I used to believe that also.
==========

[qazplm135]

88. well

I'd say return to your former self then.

[Amy-Strange]

91. Ok, that's funny, and I wish I could, but...

-

I can't unknow what I already know.
==========

[qazplm135]

110. what you think you know

I'd suggest you re-examine with a more critical eye.

[Amy-Strange]

118. I have...

-

and I always try to critically analyze what I believe, but I still haven't been able to prove myself wrong about this yet.
==========

[qazplm135]

122. well

I'd put more energy into trying to prove why you are "right."

Because, again, trying to prove a negative is not how science works.

[Amy-Strange]

127. Actually, that's exactly how science works.

-

It's called peer review.
========

[qazplm135]

132. peer review

is looking at something to see if the evidence is SUFFICIENT to support the stated claim.

It's literally looking at, have you proved this thing you say is true.

It is NOT looking at, have you disproved something.

So, when I say light is carried by invisible unicorns, peer review asks, what's your evidence, and then evaluates that evidence against that claim.

What it does not do, is say, I know you say you have proven light is carried by photons, but you haven't disproven it couldn't be carried by invisible unicorns instead.

[Amy-Strange]

138. Isn't that disproving a positive with a negative?

-

Sometimes you can't prove a negative, and sometimes you can.

For example, for years people believed a certain kind of ape didn't exist, until they found them.

That's proving a negative.
=========

[qazplm135]

144. no think of it as a scale

on one side of the scale is your theory, on the other side is the evidence to support your theory.

If there's no evidence, then the scale keeps your theory down, with no support.

If there's some evidence, then the scale lifts your theory up to the plausible, the possible.

If there's a lot of evidence, then the scale lifts up your theory so high that it becomes a very likely "way things are."

To your "Example" the "evidence" for the lack of a certain kind of ape, I'm assuming you mean an ape that was thought to be extinct but was later determined not to be was probably the fact that we saw that it used to exist but then saw that it was no longer present in the biosphere. We used absence of evidence to prove evidence of absence which is often a logical fallacy.
Then evidence came along that they existed.

Put another way, the reason I am an agnostic and not an atheist is because I don't believe in the idea that you can KNOW that God doesn't exist. You can REASON that there is no evidence for God. You can BELIEVE that God doesn't exist. But you cannot KNOW that God doesn't exist. You cannot PROVE that God doesn't exist. What you can do is prove (given enough time and knowledge) everything that happens in the universe and the mechanisms and reasons behind it.

But don't listen to me, listen to Carl Sagan:
"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?"

[Amy-Strange]

148. I agree with some of that, but the ape wasn't extinct.

-

Most people didn't believe it existed at all.
===========

[qazplm135]

151. well that should show you

the difficulty in proving a negative...all it takes is one ape.

[Amy-Strange]

153. That's not the only negative to be proven true...

-

The Komodo dragon, Platypus, Okapi, and Manatee were all thought not to exist, and they're not small animals either.

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/monster-week/mythical-animals-that-turned-out-to-be-real/
==========

[Amy-Strange]

152. Most didn't believe that gorillas existed, until...

-

they found one.

Here's the story:

Mythical Animals That Turned Out to Be Real

GORILLA

Today it's hard to imagine a world in which people didn't believe gorillas existed. But it's not so hard to imagine your own skepticism if you were regaled with tales about giant, hairy, savage man-beasts with bad tempers living in the wilds of some far-away place. (And you didn't have access to the Internet to confirm or bust the story.)

Right?

And so it went for Westerners for a long, long time. Some attribute the first sighting of a gorilla by a non-native to Greek explorer Hanno in the 5th century B.C., although today scientists believe he was probably witnessing chimpanzees or baboons --- called "gorillae," as it happened, by his interpreters. Another explorer, Andrew Battel, told tales of human-like "monsters" visiting his camp's fire every morning after the humans had left for the day (although he pointed out that the apes didn't know enough to put MORE wood on the fire, tsk).

But gorillas themselves remained obscure and poorly understood until 1847, when physician and naturalist Thomas Savage obtained several gorilla bones, including skulls, in Liberia, and coauthored with Harvard anatomist Jeffries Wyman the first formal description of the newly discovered species Gorilla gorilla. And it wasn't until a decade after THAT that explorer Paul du Chaillu would see (and, unfortunately, hunt) live gorillas, sending back specimens to the societies funding his expeditions.

But even more unbelievably? The mountain gorilla subspecies Gorilla gorilla beringei remained a myth until 1902, when it was first identified by German captain Robert von Beringe!

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/monster-week/mythical-animals-that-turned-out-to-be-real/
===========

[qazplm135]

154. most people not believing something

isn't a theory.

Not having information about something and then later having information is not "proving a negative."

[Amy-Strange]

160. True, but...

-

I believe bigfoot exist, but a lot of people tell me that I can't prove it, because you can't prove a negative.
===========

[qazplm135]

163. literally the opposite

you believe in something, but you have no positive evidence for it. That's not "proving a negative."

I cannot prove to you that "Bigfoot doesn't exist." What I can say is that there is no real evidence that Bigfoot exists so it is likely that Bigfoot doesn't exist, but I cannot definitively say it doesn't because it only takes one Bigfoot.

The point is, that we put the emphasis on someone claiming something IS true to prove it, not on the person asking for that proof to prove that it isn't true.

[Amy-Strange]

164. Those other people don't think so...

-

They don't think bigfoot exist, and thus I can't prove a negative, or so they say.
===========

[Ms. Toad]

171. YOU say it DOES exist

Your job is not to prove a negative (that it DOES NOT) exist. Your job is to prove the positive (that it DOES) exist, which you can do by producing bigfoot.

[Amy-Strange]

173. Absolutely correct, except...

-

I didn't say I know it DOES exist, I said I THINK it exist.
========

[Ms. Toad]

177. Completely irrelevant as to whether you have to prove a positive or a negative. n/t

[Amy-Strange]

166. Interestingly enough...

-

that's exactly what you should say about premonitions.

There's no real proof it exist, but you cannot definitely say it doesn't.
==========

[qazplm135]

182. no, you are the one telling us it exists

we are telling you there's no evidence it exists, and for it to exist, a whole lot of things we know to be true about physics have to be completely wrong.

We are telling you the burden falls to you and others claiming it true, not to us saying there's no evidence.

We are telling you to stop at the first half of your second sentence. You're literally halfway there.

[Amy-Strange]

187. What I said from Post 160 was, "I believe bigfoot exist", and...

-

that's not the same thing as saying it absolutely DOES exist.
===========

[qazplm135]

192. see the difference twixt you and me

is I try very hard to not believe something unless I feel there is suitable evidence for it.

[Amy-Strange]

196. I understand, and I agree, but...

-

I also don't just dismiss something just because it sounds wrong.
==========

[qazplm135]

200. you should

in the sense that if something sounds wrong, then you probably shouldn't believe it UNTIL you have evidence.

If you and I are married, and I come home late at night at 2am, and I smell like perfume that isn't yours, but I tell you that I was kidnapped by a perfumed woman and kept hostage for three hours until I escaped...

well, you should probably dismiss that as the truth unless I have some fairly compelling evidence.

I mean, you can't prove it's not true, but I suspect you ain't that gullible.

[Amy-Strange]

208. No, I won't dismiss it, but...

-

not having an open mind is not a good way to approach scientific research, at least in my opinion anyway.
====================

[Amy-Strange]

189. I don't agree, but...

-

what exactly would be proven wrong in physics, if premonitions were proven?

In other words, what laws or theories concerning physics proves that premonitions aren't true?

There's a reason why it's called the sixth sense.
==========

[qazplm135]

197. I already listed some things

The reason why it is called the sixth sense was because scientists at the time thought we only had five senses.
Spoiler alert, we have a lot more than just five. So even that's not right.

If premonitions are true, that means the future is fixed. That means things don't happen at random, which is a fundamental underpinning of quantum mechanics. And which we see every day starting with the weather.

If I see years into the future then that means all of the varied number of coin flips and random acts that would have to happen leading up to that event occurring are in fact not random.

Furthermore, causality is ruined. If I see the future, I see an effect BEFORE the thing that caused it. That violates causality. And that's pretty much one of the iron clad rules of reality. cause precedes effect. The cat hits the glass which falls off the table and hits the ground. The glass doesn't shatter into a million pieces on it's own, then end up on the ground, then get hit by the cat.
IOW, it violates Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics.

After that, how does the information get into the brain in the first place? There is no known particle that goes backwards in time. The only THEORETICAL particle that might do this is a tachyon. But first of all, they haven't been proven to exist, and second, if they did exist, they never slow down past the speed of light, always traveling FASTER than light so they are certainly not interacting with the neurons in your brain.

There's no biological process for this to work. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034337/
Read the last two paragraphs especially.

[Amy-Strange]

203. Ok, I know this is gonna sound crazy, but...

-

I also believe that time can travel fast for some people, and slow for others.

This actually has some basis in fact, if you remember the theory about time slowing down in wormholes and also when traveling at high speeds.

But, what if time can also speed up for some people.

You've heard people say that, "time seemed to fly by," but what if it actually did?

What if for some people who had time fly by were actually at the Seahawks game ahead of the rest of us, and somehow sent that knowledge back to me?

That scenario would not change history, at least that's what I believe.

Remember that a lot of people didn't believe Einstein when he proposed his theory of relativity, but it literally changed physics.
===========

[qazplm135]

209. time travels

at different speeds for two reasons (really the same reason because they are linked)...because of the presence/degree of a gravity well (more gravity slower time) or because of the velocity you travel (faster you go slower time goes) and vice versa.

That's it. Those are the two reasons. This is probably because time isn't separate but an amalgam of spacetime, and probably because gravity is a function of spacetime too. It's not surprising that they would be related.

But if you and I are in the same gravity well, going the same speed, then objective time goes the same.

Now, subjectively, we might experience time differently. If you are excited or happy, time might feel like it is flying...and if I am bored or sad or in pain, time might feel like it slows down...but those are SUBJECTIVE feelings, not objective reality. If we are wearing a clock, time will be the same for both of us, regardless of how we perceived it emotionally or subjectively.

And sending information backwards about an event to before the thing that caused that event is still a violation of causality, no matter how fast time went for someone. It's still a violation of Newton's Second Law. It's still putting effect before cause. It still requires a fixed future with no randomness that we know exists thanks to quantum mechanics.

Einstein didn't "change physics." The vast majority of physics that was right before him, is right now. Newton's laws are still solid. His gravity theories are still mostly right. It's just that Einstein was more right, and in a more specific way.

[Amy-Strange]

213. maybe, but

-

I think there are other reasons for time to speed up or slow down for each of us, but you probably don't believe this, because there's currently no proof.

Remember Louis Pasteur and John Tyndall ?

Almost everyone believed in spontaneous generation, until they proved them wrong.

Someday, my beliefs may be proven, but until then, you certainly have every right to believe it isn't.
=============

[qazplm135]

220. no not maybe

smarter people than you or I have done the work on this.

If you are going to type maybe to everything and basically act as if we know nothing and basically anything is possible then you aren't following science at all, you are just wanting to believe whatever you want to believe.

[Amy-Strange]

225. Yes maybe

[Ms. Toad]

222. You remind me of having to write court responses to "sovereign citizens."

Their legal views have no basis in reality, but they use enough of the right legal langauge that it takes forever to explain why they are completely wrong. It is exhausting, and uses up resources that could be better spend on other things. And in the end they still don't believe you, so they file an appeal to the next court up the ladder and the court there has to go through the same exhausting and pointless explanations.

[Amy-Strange]

226. It is exhausting

[qazplm135]

227. as another attorney

yeah, I can see how this represents someone who thinks they know the law, but all they know are some buzzwords, and they just keep repeating them and restating the same thing no matter how many times you tell them, no, that's not the way it is.

[Ms. Toad]

229. And, based on your familiarity with physics,

probably also a fellow patent attorney.

[qazplm135]

237. nope

military attorney, just retired...vast majority criminal law, some administrative and operational law, throw in some fiscal, contracts, ethics, standard jack of all trades stuff...but mostly criminal law defense and prosecution.

[Ms. Toad]

242. So science is just a hobby? n/t

[qazplm135]

243. I'm not good enough to call it a hobby lol

An interest. I was a failed aero/astro engineering student at Purdue before law school which was way easier lol

[Ms. Toad]

246. You were doing a pretty good job.

My physics degree is 40 years old, and I haven't used it a lot since then. But it bought me a ticket to the patent bar - several interviews, and two job offers when nothing else was biting.

Odd how a 5-year gap in obvious employment (stay at home mom) wasn't able to counter stellar academic and bar credentials. . .

[qazplm135]

247. I always assume

A real physicist would point out ten errors in any post I make lol

I'm an expert in military criminal law, outside of that, I am just someone with interests but I appreciate it coming from someone with more education in this area.

It was actually advanced calculus that killed me. Concepts I got, differential equations scrambled my brain.

[Ms. Toad]

249. I'm not a real physicist.

I love it, but I'm in the field of law now because when I had to reenter the workforce after age 40, I needed move to a field where I am more competitive (which has always been in the writing arena).

[qazplm135]

251. Funny

because now that I am retired from the military, I'm 50/50 on doing more law or switching to teaching.

My retirement pay makes it an easier decision though.

[Javaman]

20. okay, thanks...

but I choose to hope sanity overtakes the voting public. (I know, that seems just like crystal ball type stuff as well)

[Amy-Strange]

36. It will, and...

-

I know it's hard to believe me, but that doesn't matter.

The Seahawks won despite the fact that no on believed me.
==========

[Disaffected]

21. What a strange thing to say...

I know that for a fact.

[Amy-Strange]

26. I am Amy-Strange after all! n/t

[Aristus]

23. May your premonition come true.

And may everyone in the country vote for Biden or against Trump in order to help your premonition.

[Amy-Strange]

27. Thank you, and...

-

you're right, because regardless, I'm still gonna vote and work hard to get rid of that guy.
=========

[RANDYWILDMAN]

30. I know for a fact

The NFL influenced the NFCCG against the 49ers, so that the #1 offense could face the #1 defense in the Super bowl that year.

When you realize that the NFL is considered ONE entity. You realize your team is not so special unless Roger G and the NFL deem it so. The NFL is one step from the WWE and yet people Gamble on the games, SCARY THOUGHT is it.

Good luck and Go Niners

Biden 2020

[Amy-Strange]

41. I'm not a big football fan, but...

-

I have heard something along those lines before, and you might be right.

Anyway, thank you for your input.
===========

[Awsi Dooger]

126. He's not right

Football is incredibly difficult to influence, given 22 players on the field at all times.

His post is a typical bitter fan: We lost but it wasn't our fault. It must have been fixed.

The 49ers had the lead in that game during the early 4th quarter but blew it by allowing a long touchdown pass. I remember the details because I do gamble.

[USALiberal]

33. Lol, ok? Nt

[Amy-Strange]

42. My friends laughed at me also, but...

-

now they're not.
=======

[USALiberal]

206. This thread is not going well for you! nt

[Amy-Strange]

207. Why should it? n/t

[MissMillie]

45. For some time now, I have been imagining the dance I will do when Trump loses on Nov 3

Despite not having done one in decades, I imagine my dance will include a cartwheel--out on the front lawn (carefully avoiding dog poo).

I haven't thought, yet, about which song I will dance to.

[Amy-Strange]

46. You WILL dance, and it WILL be beautiful.

-

I guarantee it, and thanx for your thoughts.
============

[KWR65]

47. You do? What stock should I invest in since you are so clairvoyant? n/t

[Amy-Strange]

48. Read my whole post, because...

-

if you did, than you'd know that's not what I'm talking about.

I don't mind being made fun of, because they all laughed at me with the Seahawks, but they were still wrong, and I was right.
========

[Ilsa]

49. I thought DU had a 1000 post minimum before you

can start posting predictions, hunches, conspiracies, or deja vu moments.

But I like how you think.

[Amy-Strange]

50. Ok, that's funny, and...

-

thank you for your support!
========

[ProfessorGAC]

52. Cleo, Is That You?

Come on, Amy. Confidence is great. But, clairvoyance is make believe.

[Amy-Strange]

54. I thought so too, but...

-

not any more, and so do my friends, especially after the Seahawks won 43 - 8 against Denver!!!
=============

[ProfessorGAC]

59. Sounds Like Your Friends Bet

Even though you didn't! Just messing with you.

[Amy-Strange]

69. My friends were upset that I was right, because...

-

they could've made a lot of money if they'd believed me, but they didn't, and I can't really blame them.

It's hard to believe something like this, unless you've experienced it yourself.

Thank you for messing with me in a nice way.

I appreciate it.
======

[lettucebe]

62. Works for me!

[Amy-Strange]

65. Thank you for your support, but don't get complacent...

-

like someone replied here, and continue to work hard to get rid of the guy.

VOTE FOR BIDEN!!!
==========

[Polybius]

63. It was just a coincidence that the Seahawks won

They were a good team, and they had a pretty good chance to do it. Even a team like the 2012 Giants with a 9-7 record could win it all, and they did.

I'm not putting you down or being snark in any way, but ESP, telekinesis, fortune telling, and anything else like that is fake.

[Amy-Strange]

64. If you say so, but...

-

I know it's not.

Anyway, thanks for not being snarky.
=========

[Polybius]

212. No you don't

It's a damn shame the Seahawks won that year, because now you believe this nonsense.

[Amy-Strange]

215. But they did, and...

-

of course, you're welcome to you're opinion.
=========

[Polybius]

216. It's not an opinion, it's science

In fact your OP comes very close to breaking DU TOS rules.

No kooky, extremist, or hate content
Do not promote ridiculous, bigoted, or extreme-fringe conspiracy theories. Do not promote extreme fringe views. Do not reference hate sites or other extremist/fringe sources.
Why we have this rule: Democrats are supposed to be part of the "reality-based community." Some amount of skepticism toward powerful institutions is healthy and appropriate, but that doesn't mean every paranoid fantasy is true. Posts about mass shootings being "false flag" operations, 9/11 being a controlled demolition, no airplane at the Pentagon, chemtrails, black helicopters, the Illuminati, or other nonsense make us all look like fools. This website may have the word "underground" in our name, but we are not extreme fringe.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Amy-Strange]

217. How is predicting Biden will win kooky, extreme or hateful? n/t

[Polybius]

218. Because there's no such thing as ESP or any other type of magic you claim to have

Take it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

[Amy-Strange]

219. I'm not claiming any of that, but...

-

I am explaining why I believe Biden will win, and you can dismiss it if you want, but I can't.
============

[DFW]

81. In the USA, it's not enough to win the election

You have to win the counting (Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, etc.) as well, and the Republicans freely admit (after a drink or two) on camera that they'll "take care of the counting."

Hillary won the last election in terms of votes, She just didn't get to take office. It is no longer enough just to get more votes in the USA to win a presidential election. There is Republican fraud and voter suppression to contend with as well, and that sometimes supersedes what the will of the majority of the voters demands.

[Amy-Strange]

82. Good point, but...

-

I'm not talking about getting the most votes. I'm saying for a fact that trump will lose the election.
==========

[DFW]

94. If you mean the Electoral College

I am confident Biden will win that, too--if the election is held fairly.

I am NOT confident the election will be held fairly. Here in Europe in 2004, my European colleagues asked me what I thought the outcome of the election would be? I said, Kerry wins, and Bush remains in office. They asked how that could be? After the election, their response was more like, "oh, I see what you mean."

[Amy-Strange]

95. Isn't that how you win a presidential election?

-

with the Electoral votes?

I'm not confident that it will be fair either, but that don't matter, because trump will lose anyway.

You'll see.
===========

[Blasphemer]

96. I've had premonitons before so I welcome yours!

I had one about the 2002 superbowl. The Rams were heavy favorites. But, I knew the patriots would win. I was living in Vegas at the time so one of my regrets in life was not betting on the Patriots.

[Amy-Strange]

97. I know how you feel, because...

-

if I didn't have gambling issues, I would've made a ton of money off what I knew as a fact.

And anyone out there who thinks, I should've bet anyway because I was so sure, don't know a thing about gambling addiction.
===========

[Blasphemer]

112. Addiciton is difficult - you definitely made the right choice... nt

[Amy-Strange]

141. I still wish I hadn't made that choice, though, but...

-

thanks for the encouragement.
=======

[BigmanPigman]

98. I predicted tRump would win and it wasn't based on

premonitions. It was based on my assessment of the American public and how purposely ignorant they are.

[Amy-Strange]

100. That definitely makes sense, and...

-

thank you for sharing.
=========

[tman]

104. I believe you. I too have had strong feelings on things.

Not sure how I feel about this one though. I know Biden can do it, but I can't see it crystal clear just yet. I have felt it would be a 'landslide' for whoever does win, not the usual 'close' race.

I hope and trust you're right.

[Amy-Strange]

105. Just as long as you still vote and work hard to get rid of that guy, and...

-

then you won't need to trust me at all, but thanks for the support.
=========

[tman]

109. I'm not American, but I've been watching overseas as America descends into darkness.

The world will rejoice when the clown is out.

[Amy-Strange]

161. Except other clowns, but...

-

we don't care about that, do we?
========

[tman]

186. We have our own clown in the UK.

When the big one (trump) goes, the rest will soon follow.

It's all the same energy.

[soothsayer]

124. I'll take it!

I look forward to you being proven right.

[Amy-Strange]

129. Your user ID says it all, and...

-

thank you for your support, but don't get complacent.

You've still got to vote and work hard to get rid of that guy, regardless, but I've got a feeling that you will.
===========

[Stuart G]

139. Amy-Strange .YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE, i PREDEICTED THE SAME..ON APRIL 11, at this link:

Hit this link and you will see my prediction on Sat April 11....Creative Speculation You didn't know this...did you?...more than 2 months ago, you cannot make this up, I said it first.....Yes.!!!!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/113512426

[Amy-Strange]

143. That was only speculation, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

-

because I know for a fact that you're on the right track.
===========

[Stuart G]

146. Your's 2 is only speculation, I said it first, I was on the right track before you boarded the train

[Amy-Strange]

150. Ok you win, but...

-

mine is NOT speculation.
========

[pecosbob]

169. I can't contribute much concerning you premonition

but for the record, most football fans knew the Falcons were never going to beat Seattle.

[Amy-Strange]

170. They didn't play the Falcons in that Super Bowl...

-

they played Denver, but thanks for sharing.
=========

[pecosbob]

172. Sorry, didn't actually type what I meant to say...

I did in fact mean the Falcons in the divisional playoff and the Broncos in the superbowl...thanks for the cleanup.

[Amy-Strange]

175. Crap, I do that too.

-

A lot of times after typing something, I wonder where in the hell I got that from.
========

[Renew Deal]

195. I knew UNC was going to win the 2009 NCAA Basketball Championship

They were that good. Other than that, I don't know nothing.

[Amy-Strange]

198. Liar...

-

I can see that you KNOW how to type.
===========

[Renew Deal]

199. lol

[NRaleighLiberal]

239. well, reading this thread is 15 minutes I'll not get back...

[lpbk2713]

250. Can you summarize so I won't have to do the same?

[TeamPooka]

244. okay but let's still all do the work to GOTV anyway, including you. nt

[Amy-Strange]

252. Thank you, and...

-

I've already acknowledged, in this thread, that I will do exactly that.
===========

[renate]

245. It may not be scientific or verifiable but I appreciate the positive words

I’m a scientist by inclination but I’ve also been a volunteer with hospice and I know that there are some things that cannot be explained away by logic or known physical laws.

[Amy-Strange]

253. Thank you, and...

-

I appreciate the support.
==========

[LanternWaste]

248. Prophecy has been disproved by the Enlightenment

And pretending prophecy is fact is some serious Jim-Jones style behavior.

Maybe put the bong down for couple of days, and allow rational and critical thought to take its place. Just for a few days.... clear your head, see how it works out. You may dig it.

Or keep pretending your kool-aide is wine (and I certainly get it, in its own hipster, tide-pod fashion, it a great vehicle for self validation for those who need that sort of thing).

[Amy-Strange]

254. If you say so, but...

-

I still appreciate your input.
==========