If you really believe this nonsense, you could make a shit-ton of cash right now. Among the people that actually put their money where their mouth is, you can get Scott Walker at 12-to-1. Meanwhile, Hillary is even money.

None of that is a guarantee of anything, of course; even money represents a 50% shot in the minds of bettors. But the odds have been a pretty good indicator in past presidential elections. Barring some sort of collapse, I don't see why they'd be wrong this time around.

www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Cool, it's gonna be a real life Borderlands!

Then stop reading Slashdot. You'll be missed.

Personally, I liked the video.

Or just a mistake, which he acknowledged and thanked you for correcting. Twice.

And you guys were doing so well heading towards getting a "Reasonable Discussion on the Internet" medal, too.

Liar.

http://www.news10.net/story/we...

Man I wish I had mod points. Brilliant post.

As Homer Simpson said, "It's funny because it's true!"

Look, they're planning for the future. If they said, "Please donate or the lights will go out in 10 years", the numbers of donations would go down drastically.

They're appealing to as massive an audience as they can to donate small amounts of money, and sure, they're using mass-appeal language to do it. I'd rather see that than have a few billionaires being lobbied to keep Wikipedia going. It makes sense.

You're right that a lot of that is misleading - but that's framing it in the worst-sounding way. It's really just advertising, although a different sort of advertising. If they said, "Hey we have $53 million in the bank, but the reality is, we need more funding in order to keep our organization going, because if we don't have sustainable funding we may go under in 10 years", how many people would donate?

The wording that they use is carefully chosen to try to get the maximum amount of donations. I'm okay with that.