Topic: 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets! - page 24. (Read 15314 times)

Inflation and what the politicians are saying is all smoke and mirrors. Covid hit, we printed a zillion new dollars and now inflation spiked who would have guessed.  The US printed more money after covid than any other time in history, it's simple economics.  More circulating money means it's worth less amd you need more to buy the same things.  They try to use it as a way to pin it against each other when in reality it's both parties fault.

The rich class and them not being taxed on assets actually play a major role in inflation too, therefore disadvantaging everyone else while they keep getting richer and paying nothing back. Elon musk was able to buy Twitter by getting a loan based on his stocks. Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and so many more of the billionaires never pay any tax or pay very miniscule tax because so far unrealized gains were not taxed.

In the USA it was considered radical to tax unrealized gains, but it's actually a common sense measure. The more Trump tries to push back on it the more votes he will lose, because more and more people are having a harder time surviving now while the rich class pays no tax so far... It's ridiculous to try and defend this from Trump's side and unless he also comes up with some equally popular measures I'm certain he will lose the election.

3 questions:

1 - what ways of millionaires "hiding" their income are you talking about specifically and what Kamala intends to do about it?
2 - why hasn't she done it yet? She/Biden have been in the office for the last 4 years and still are. Why wait till after the elections?
3 - do you believe the billionaires in the likes of Bloomberg, Hoffman, Eychaner, Simons etc who donate tens of millions yearly to the Democratic party would be doing so if they seriously thought they would have their wealth slashed and redistributed? Not to mention multi-millionaires within the party itself.

I mean Russia will probably not be strong enough to decide who is the president. Could they do something? Well they can use bots to promote their candidates, btu bots on social media? I mean sure maybe a few votes at best, but not like enough to make someone president at all.

Or maybe donations via some third parties? Sure, but I honestly do not think that they would be stupid enough to pay hundreds of millions, maybe couple millions at best. So all in all, Russia doesn't matter. I am saying this as someone who thinks Kamala would be better, and even I do not think Russia is a threat.

Because if Trump comes in power, he will stop the payments to Ukraine and any help, he said so himself , and find a peace talk, which will include basically giving Russia whatever they want, whereas Kamala forces to pay even more to Ukraine to keep fighting, so they do not lose, and this doesn't help Russia. So Russia clearly supports Trump, and lies about supporting kamala, but in reality neither matters because we are talking about a situation where it is not going to end up with anything decent in anytime soon, it is not really looking like something that will matter, Russia doesn't have that power at all.

Hey remember when Trump told the country that Covid-19 was a "democratic hoax" and made wearing a mask and staying home political and then it killed almost 1 million Americans?

Trump is a business man and he knows how to find his way when things that are unpleasant happens to him. His opponent which is Harris can not withstand Trump continuous speech because I don't think she has the muscles for it. We can not compare Harris to Trump when it comes to presentation and what they have for the American people. Harris had failed many times when asked about her plan for the Americans and what plan she has to bring down the price of groceries and food stuff to a minimum level. We know their is no way she could defend herself because she's one of the people that are responsible for the high surge of food prices and other commodities.

It seems that yes, a nuclear war is imminent if the Biden way is used again by the elected leader, seeing that diplomatic relations in the Biden administration were very bad, tensions were mounting especially with Russia + China and the double standards they did that made many people angry about US alignments during the Biden period and if I was not mistaken, Arabs did not require oil buyers to use dollars anymore.

So do you think Trump or Harris sir can handle all these crises?

Wait you didn't enjoy watching all the riots, lies, recession, and the "everyone is really pissed off" vibe?

I'm assuming you're not an American based on how you typed up your response here.  I would hold you to the question of "Trump during his time as the president was able to implement policies that favored Americans and the economy was at a good stand which Americans commended him for".  I'm not sure which policies you're referring to.  Many Americans, such as myself, don't really thank him for anything. He divided us like never before, and is still doing so.

I want to place a bet on Kamala, but I'm always wrong with whom I think is going to win. Still internally debating this one.

Trump is a good orator and can talk for a long time without piping into a note or anything for a reminder and I wonder how he does that. Anyways that's just a minor concerns about the citizens but a good leadership is the dream of the American citizens this forth coming polls.
Trump during his time as the president was able to implement policies that favored Americans and the economy was at a good stand which Americans commended him for. I believe he would win this elections and even do much better than his previous term in office as the President of the United States. It is left for the Americans to decide during the polls and I wish them the best of luck when choosing their president. 

To make your argument even more understandable, we should know that "Trump needs bitcoin to help him win the elections, but Bitcoin does not need Trump to have a bull run"

I hope this statement will make it clear that even if today Trump announces that he will not accept Bitcoin, still it will have no effect on the longevity and adoption of Bitcoin. Many people are thinking that if Trump does not support Bitcoin or if he is not elected as the president, it will have a bad impact on Bitcoin or the bull market, but this is not the case. I hope everyone knows that there was no Trump in the 2017 and 2021 bull markets  

A nuclear war today, in my opinion, is less likely to happen because both parties (or all the multiple parties involved) would be pretty much aware that the use of such weapons of mass destruction would translate into mutual destruction of all of them, so they do not use those weapons, but nuclear countries keep them at bay for intimidation purposes, being the most important example North Korea.
Since we are now talking about nuclear weapons in this betting thread on the presidential elections of the USA, I would feel personally more comfortable with keeping Trump as away as possible from the nuclear button, not even mentioning he is the kind of person who would further push for a hot war in the middle east, Trump is completely onboard with the interests of Israel, and those have much to do with expansionism, I am afraid.

It is natural that there is competition during elections and those in power will definitely make changes according to what they want. Elections are an arena for selection and candidates will compete on ideas to gain the sympathy of voters. Trump has the ability to argue in debates while Kamala is not an orator who can influence people. In the context of elections this may have a little effect although not overall and Trump is much more capable in this matter.

No leader is able to solve all existing problems and it is not only in the US because in any country it is difficult for the president to solve all existing problems in a short time.

I don't think nuclear war is a given today.

I think it is mostly believed that humanity was closest to nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962...

But now it is all different, I think society has been changing with AI and social media, etc.

So you think America should consider the agreement to protect Ukraine in exchange for giving up their nukes void because Russia, who signed the same agreement, attacked Ukraine.

And you also think Biden should have stacked up US troops on the Russia/Ukraine border while they were trading rocket attacks and Putin was stacking up Russian forces on his side of the same border.

It seems like your primary goal is to argue that any decision Biden made was the wrong decision, and any decision Trump has made, or has said he will make, is the correct decision, and the only way to get there is if you ignore the downsides of what Trump says he will do and the downsides of  what you say Biden should have done but didn't.

The downside to Biden stacking up US troops in Ukraine while Putin is preparing to invade is nuclear war.  The upside is Putin backs down, and yes, that would be the absolute best outcome, but with two nuclear powers staring each other down on the border of Russia while rockets are flying, part of the risk is a new war starts by accident due to a stray rocket or a miscommunication.  So if you're in Bidens shoes in Feb 2022 how sure would you need to be to take that risk?  Would you do it if there was a 90% chance of not starting a nuclear war with Russia?  95%?  

Do you understand what the downside to cutting off support for Ukraine next year is?  What do you think the worst case scenario with a 10-20% possibility would be?



Not rumors, he did it in 2016 to help Trump and he's doing it again right now to help Trump.  We know exactly how he did it in 2016 and we know at least part of what he's doing now.

In fact many of the Trump supporters in this thread, including you, are falling for the disinformation that Russia is working to spread.

Who gives a crap about such pointless rumours? Russia will continue their invasion of Ukraine thanks to brain-dead Putin regardless of whoever becomes the next president based on my observations.

Also, this whole nuclear war stuff is silly talk since it stands to benefit absolutely no one. Always hilarious seeing fat Kim display his nation's nuclear power now and then when we all know that it's just an illusion and nothing more.

Sorry to interject out of nowhere, but nuclear war is pretty well guaranteed at this point. All the tensions we have seen so far haven't even taken into account water scarcity yet.     

It appears that Trump's rating has increased by 2% on Polymarket hehehehe. He is 48% from 46% at present.

https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024/will-kamala-harris-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election?tid=1727061554376

If this is a chart of a cryptocoin, does this appear to be the movement of a coin that might pump strongly or dump?



Also, if the rumors that Russia can manipulate the election to favor a candidate, who would Russia want to become the president and what type of administration would be easier for Russia? Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

Millionaires hiding their income in non-taxable forms such as assets is a trick that they have utilized for far too long and the capitalist establishment was more than willing to afford them the freedom to do that. Now Kamala has shown willingness to end that and this is going to send a big precedent worldwide. If millionaires can't hide their wealth in the US, the forefront of capitalism, soon all of the world's large economies are bound to follow.

This was a common sense policy and should have been there from the start, but at least they figured now that economic inequality had widened so much people are starving while billionaires are getting a larger piece of the pie year after year only for the handful bunch that they are.

I don't think that ever worked that way. Taxing millionaires is not that easy, as often they don't pay themselves any taxable income (as they don't have to) and retain money within their business, for investments etc. So the concept of the government taking a chunk of it to re-distribute (losing a lot of it in the process) to stimulate the economy is flawed.
And whenever the government mentions some strange ideas to get their money, like the concept of unrealised gains tax, there's a rightful panic and a risk the rich would be looking to move their businesses and wealth elsewhere.
But frankly, I think it's all just a bluff on her part aimed to earn more votes. If she/Biden were serious about that, they'd have done it already.