Topic: 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets! - page 25. (Read 15314 times)

I think Bitcoin will do better under Kamala not because she had specific policies, but because the economy will do better.

Kamala has promised to cut back on tax heavens and on billionaires bit paying their texes. If this money enters the US economy again it will be a perfect opportunity for people to earn more money and potentially invest some in Bitcoin too. Right now too many people work for putting little to nothing on the side. So long that changes of course more money would enter bitcoin's economy.

Why are people, including some experts of opinion that Bitcoin could tank if Kamala is elected as the POTUS?
Some examples of news articles:
Bitcoin: Could a Kamala Harris Victory Signal a Rough Ride for the Bulls?
Bernstein predicts a bitcoin price of $80-90k if Trump wins presidential race, or $30-40k if Harris is elected

It doesn't make sense to me, she (or the group that she's a part of) has been in power for the last 4 year and not only have they not did any major harm to Bitcoin, but also during their watch we've seen approval of the spot ETFs, meaning any ideas of delegalising Bitcoin are close to impossible. The KYC requirements are already as strict as it gets, so I don't see any major risk here, unless I'm missing something.

I'm not sure I see Trumps odds looking better these days. Every casino that I follow that is allowing this race to be bet on has seen Trumps odds fall as time goes on, or I guess you could say he theory he's getting 'better' odds since Kamala's have been getting worse in terms of potential payout.   I will certainly be interesting to see how things play out as this seems to be on of the tightest races maybe of my life time. 

Trump's odds are looking better these days, while I do agree that Kamala looks like she is leading and in all probability she will win this one, I think Trump has an underdogs chance to win and the odds are showing that and it is not too far away from each other so betting on Trump seems better now. For a while, he was leading, and I never believed that he was leading at all, but odds showed he was leading, and at that time betting on him made no sense, it was a bad move.

So in clear idea, one could have voted for Kamala when she first became the candidate, and then someone could vote for Trump now and both bets would be odds over 2.00 as well, funny how that works but that is exactly how it became. It was always Trump as underdog and Kamala as favourite to me, it was clear that would happen, everyone waited for "anyone but these two" when it was Biden vs Trump, and when Kamala came out as candidate, too many people got happy, but Trump is not nothing and he could still win by thin margin.

Yes, the truth is I have not been able to see the debate, although I can say that I do not know how much impact a debate usually has in the USA, is a debate capable of changing people's minds in the USA? That is, change their vote to another opponent? because according to my logic it is that, although I do not know what they think in the USA, I personally still think that the polls, the debates do not have much impact, in fact they are not as reliable as they were some elections ago, I know that the Electoral Colleges are what determine the winner, even so I see the people of the USA very politicized and in my opinion that is not so good, because in part we are all politicians, the bad thing is that everything is based on it, that is how many bad things begin in a country, fanaticism above all damages from friendships to families making enemies of people and unnecessarily, because when seen from another focus, people fight over one or two politicians under which those politicians have no idea of ​​their existence.

Did you even think before typing all of this nonsense? Firstly, Trump has zero effect on BTC and other crypto just like any other corrupt politician. Secondly, the dude is currently the underdog while Harris is the favorite.

It's pretty evident that you are twisting the narrative thanks to your bias towards Trump. Hilarious stuff!

Its not fake, its opinion based or subjective.   I do agree the majority of the press has a left bias to it but not to the extent they'd mislabel the news on purpose.  Subconsciously there is bias there anyway, a natural alignment of the left you could say maybe journalism has that slant Im not sure.

Harris most likely does have the popular vote but could lose anyway, thats the tricky thing.   The polls dont represent that well enough, it'd cost them far more to poll accurately to that extent they just take a quick test or indicator.    None of it will be too accurate until the day the votes are all counted.
   Clinton lost with the popular vote and having being called a winner by some Channels on the night but actual electoral votes never followed through.  So I would look for any similarities between the two then and now.  If we can spot a repeat that'd be a great counter bet.

First I don't look at the poll result but see a screenshot and your post, I know it comes from BBC. Next I have no reason to believe in the poll result conducted by BBC because days ago I read an article from BBC that says Kamala Harris did a better debate than Trump and she beat Trump in the debate.

This information about the debate is very fake, so how do I believe in BBC's poll result?

I am sorry but no way to believe in the poll result.

Who won the debate?
Undecided Americans impressed by Harris - but did debate shift their votes?

However, this treaty is nothing because Russia attacked Ukraine and Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine joins NATO. He has also mentioned that their actions on nuclear launch will be very fast. It will not be formula 1 fast, it will be hypersonic. What will the next administration's roadmap for this war?

Also, it appears that you did not understand the argument. America as the peace keeper but by backed by a full military occupation by the USA in Ukraine if Putin creates an attempt to invade might give him second thoughts.

You mention George W Bush hehehe. If he was president, Putin might not invade Ukraine. I speculate that one of the reasons that encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine is because the president of America is presently very weak. I wish the next American leader will be a peace maker but threaten full military control of Ukraine to discourage Putin.

Donald Trump held a meeting on Bitcoin one day and that day there was an unprecedented amount of volatility on Bitcoin.  So I think if Donald Trump wins the election Bitcoin will pump a lot more. And Donald Trump is very likely to be elected.  Because he is an experienced president and has a lot of popularity. so his chances of winning the election are much higher than other candidates. Because of this I can predict a big bull run in Bitcoin in December.  And if it doesn't happen in December, it could do it in the first quarter of 2025.

At the same time, if I bet for the US election, I would put it in favor of Donald Trump

That's a good question.

In exchange for Ukraine giving up it's Soviet Nuclear Weapons in 1994, America, Russia and the UK signed an agreement to respect Ukraine borders and as a sovereign country, and also to guarantee security to Ukraine as a non nuclear state, should they come under attack or threat by a Nuclear power.



What you're really saying is that after convincing Ukraine to give up it's nukes, and promise to keep them safe, America should refuse to help Ukraine while being attacked by Russia. 
The whole peacekeeping, anti-war stance is really just "I support Russian Imperialism".
It's really not just about Ukraine.  The reason for NATO existing today is because they were worried that Russia would do what Putin has been trying to do for the last couple decades.  

You: "But US invaded smaller countries too"

Imagine George W Bush never left office and was still looking for any excuse to invade today.  Now look at Putin.

I am not quite certain what is good or bad because I am only a small minnow and I cannot be the judge on this, however, we can certainly witness that from the position of Russia, they certainly see that American imperialism is bad. It might be because for them, what business does America have over Russia and Ukraine? America should be the peace keeping diplomats, I reckon. They should not support war being the stronger superpower but their military should answer in force if no one wants peace.

I speculate that the Donald will use diplomacy backed by full military force if Putin does not listen and I reckon this will certainly make Putin listen.

In any case, Trump is losing. I have speculated that the second debate might be good for Trump's ratings because Kamala is not a strong debater. However, Trump made it appear that she is strong.

All presidents peak and then decline in popularity when actually in office.  Whats remarkable here is Harris managed to already be the Vice president and not suffer any negative from Biden's policies which is surprising when she is apparently backing them and not openly disagreeing while campaigning here.
   Trump equally was in power and has to be held responsible for his tenure, of the two he has the worst track record I guess with many deaths in the pandemic and the inevitable recession at that time.    So on this historic point of view, Harris wins the balance of the popular vote most likely.  

If Trump gets in this time, it will be the first time I can remember a one term president losing then regaining the office.   So in terms of probability the odds are against him on achieving that feat.

Here I googled it:  Cleveland of 1884 term, won, lost, won.  https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/few-former-presidents-have-run-for-their-old-jobs-or-anything-else-after-leaving-office/

You're right that he's likely reached the peak already because of that incident. While for Harris, people who are in Trump and hears her talk in her campaigns are still able to contemplate whether who to vote for real.

That's why she hasn't reached the peak yet and there's more to grow. And for Trump, we'll see if the ones that are on him will stick until the end.

You are right, elections would definitely come and go but the community and the people would always be there. This is the reason why it is not good to make issues and things difficult for other people when one is in power. Posterity would always have its course no matter what happens. The people always know who they want but the process never allows them get  things done properly. This is the situation of my country.

I think this is a very unlikely scenario that no more than 1% believe in. But sometimes it can happen, for example, I personally expect a lot of interesting and unexpected things from the upcoming elections. Today's world never ceases to present surprises, and unfortunately, they are often negative. Nevertheless, I think that everything will be fair and transparent, and the winner will be announced with a small advantage, I can't say yet what it will be, because their chances are equal. I am really curious who will win and the swing states will decide the outcome of this election.

I don't see a third party becoming president.  I also don't see Kamala winning without Trump crying fraud and his MAGAtard army parroting back every one of his baseless conspiracy theories.  Luckily they've been telegraphing their plan for years now, installing MAGAtards on as many local election boards as possible to hold up any certification where the outcome isn't a Trump victory and cause enough chaos to give Trump an opening to force his way into the white house somehow.  The democrats I've heard discuss this recently seem pretty confident that they will be able to shut all that down but we'll see.

Absolute worst case scenario, imo, is Trump loses and then just decides to say he's president and convinces his MAGAtards to try and overthrow the government again in much bigger numbers than last time.

---

Communism = everything is state owned.  No free markets.

A communist government will have a police department, a military, public schools, etc.

That doesn't mean police departments, militaries and public schools in capitalist countries are communist.

Non-communist countries have been implementing price controls since before communism existed - including America - under conservative presidents.
Non-communist countries have enforced anti-racist anti-homophobic policies for decades.
Non-communist countries have built government funded health care systems and made them available to every citizen.
Non-communist countries have progressive tax policies, where the wealthy pay more to help fund programs that benefit the people that need help the most.

None of these ideas are communist. You don't have to agree with them, and there are valid arguments to be made against them.  But calling them communist is just ignorant.

vs

Oh, the irony in this, a non-American who has never set foot in the USA is talking about how he knows everything about the US and how life is there but at the same time god forbid someone points out the flaws in his own knowledge of his own country. But this is the usual stuff, as always the one who hasn't seen something in his entire life knows most about that single stuff than even the guy that invented it!

So, the genocide of the kulaks started in 1930 according to you...weird, then who said this in 1918? Lenin maybe?

No, you didn't!
So again why is a "communist" Harris that wants to tax corporations who are sucking the soul of every American a bad thing?


Oh I got it!
So as a corporation that sells stuff I would want out of the $10 I make from selling a $90 product the state to get half of it so I would have to raise the price to $200 as for sure people will buy the same amount of goods! No fucking way would I want the government to cut taxes so that I don't spend $90 but $80 making this product and I could sell it for $100 making $20 for the same price and some demand!
Are you sure you know how taxation on profits works? 


He knows he is losing, he needs desperately something and I'm pretty sure in just a few weeks we're going to see some really big PR show or some false flag operation, he needs desperately to either gain real conservative votes or to make people not vote for Kamala. Meanwhile, it's funny how crypto markets still go for her despite Trump being a shitcoinlover



Outside this forum and the bots infected X nobody is buying Trump crypto fake love:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1fiue9m/donald_trump_struggles_and_seems_confused_in/
And some still think Americans will vote for Trump just because of crypto 

An idea occurred to me... Is anyone here considering a scenario in which Kamala Harris wins the US presidential election, but Donald Trump's supporters categorically reject her victory?

As a result, a political crisis arises in the US, after which neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump becomes president, but some third person? As a result, all bets on the victory of these two candidates are effectively cancelled. More precisely, everyone who bet on one or the other candidate will end up losing and lose their money.

The probability of such an event is currently assessed by me as not very high, but it is by no means zero.

Depends on where you are talking about to be fair. I am sure that you do matter in a lot of places for military presence, but just because there are military personal in some places, doesn't mean that they actually care that much at all. Like just for example, when you were in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever third world nation then it did matter a lot, because those are places you completely change.

But if we are talking about Ukraine, that's something you did because you hate Russia, while we all do, and Europe definitely loved the help, doesn't mean that the result would be all that different if you didn't do it, sanctions would still be there, maybe that two piece of lands would have been lost already, but Europe would have been Europe, like just because Ukraine lost land, nothing would have changed for Germany or France for example, hence the added importance to yourself is shown everyone, world doesn't care about USA as much as you think it does.