Topic: [BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon - page 4. (Read 2388 times)

I understand the joke but I prefer to invest the amounts that make the difference, not bet them.


There is no perfect electoral system.


The problem with proportional electoral systems, those that come closest to each person's vote being equal in electoral weight to one vote, is that the great majority of people live in urban areas and for them the problems of rural areas are not a priority. If you equalize the weight of the votes, the electoral result will reflect what the urbanites want, leaving the people of rural areas marginalized. In addition, you also further incentivize people from rural areas to move to cities, if all policy is focused on them.


I'm going to tell Trump to quote you if he loses, lol.

Come on! It should be an amount that makes a difference, else what is the fun ... for us I mean   I think you guys have been long enough into crypto to have the odd bitcoin here and there. Anything less than 1 bitcoin is just not enough for the show  

Fun apart, the fact is that presidency is not even a question of a few states, the electoral system in the US is so funny that it may actually be a question of a few counties and a few groups of interests here and there. Trump is now fishing into those groups. That is something that in my view should change, but I reckon is unlikely given the historical origins of the US and how it was built from the original colonies.

It is to note that it makes the system more fragile to gerrymandering, ballot stuffing and all other dirty tricks. An electoral system that is proportional to number of votes, even something like Nevada that is somewhat proportional, would better reflect the true opinion of the population, but also would make it much more difficult to rig because it would need a massively spread fraud. With the current system, fraud in a few counties could be enough.

Well, there are three days left until the elections and the die is cast, as they say. I understand that as suchmoon and I are quite responsible we have made a bet as it should be done, with an amount that if we lose it will not be a problem for our finances at all, but it is a nice amount if you win it.

The latest polls I've seen, which if they don't show Trump winning at least show him gaining ground on Kamala, don't give us margins that allow us to be conclusive either. It seems that what happens in 3 or 4 swing states is what will decide who will be the next POTUS.

So I wish suchmoon luck even though I'd rather he didn't win, obviously.

Replace then "will not" with "would not". I personally live as an AI in Paxmania in a cloud server in an unmapped island in the Pacific as far as this forum is concerned.

But the problem is the same, you may have a better idea, a better programme and the purpose to regenerate politics, but you need to convince a number of people in a party that stands a chance and then try to win. The need to gather funds and support is built into the system and creates certainly many wrong incentives and it is difficult to change or regenerate a party. Speaking of which, what will be the Republican party from now on?

Case (1) Trump looses. Does the party keep in the same line, but with out without Trump?
Case (2) they win and Trumps goes for a third mandate. Would the party by then be strong enough to opose after the purges?
Case (3) they win, Trump steps down, but... will he still be the power in the shadow?

If you want to regenerate, it would seem that even if you have to vote covering your nose, it may be worth to at least make sure Trump looses.

Well man, I can't get into people's minds but I do know that there are people who only vote democrat even if the candidate is a useless woman who can't answer a direct question even when they ask her soft interviews, and in the same way there are people who only vote republican no matter if the candidate is all those things you said.

We will never know who truly gained more votes. The standard media is working for the Dem Deep State. We won't know the truth from them.

But, we can see the truth from Joe Rogan.


HUGE! Kamala tried to scam Joe Rogan: Joe Rogan Turns Down Harris Interview Over Campaign’s Demands – BAM

---

https://worldnews.whatfinger.com/2024/10/29/huge-kamala-tried-to-scam-joe-rogan-joe-rogan-turns-down-harris-interview-over-campaigns-demands-bam/
Joe Rogan declined an invitation to interview Vice President Kamala Harris on his popular podcast, citing excessive demands from her campaign team.

The Harris campaign reportedly requested significant control over the interview format, including the selection of questions, which Rogan found unacceptable.

Rogan, known for his unfiltered and open-ended interview style, felt that the demands would compromise his podcast's authenticity.

The Harris campaign allegedly wanted restrictions on topics, limiting what could be discussed, particularly around contentious issues.

Rogan's refusal highlights his stance against political interference, particularly when it affects open conversation and journalistic integrity.

He has a large, diverse audience and is known for allowing guests from all political backgrounds, but demands for control were a deal-breaker.

The campaign reportedly insisted on pre-screening questions, something Rogan considered an infringement on the organic nature of his interviews.

The move underscores a tension between political figures seeking controlled media exposure and platforms valuing spontaneous dialogue.

Rogan felt that accepting these terms would alienate his audience, who expect unfiltered discussions without political constraints.

The podcast host expressed concerns that such demands from political campaigns are becoming more common, potentially impacting media independence.

Rogan's platform has previously hosted high-profile figures from various political backgrounds, including Bernie Sanders and Elon Musk, without issue.

Critics argue that Harris's campaign's control measures reflect a broader pattern of restricting press freedom within the current administration.

The campaign also reportedly requested final editing rights, which Rogan's team found unacceptable, as it would interfere with the podcast's transparency.

Harris's team has not commented publicly on Rogan's rejection, though sources indicate disappointment over the missed opportunity.

Rogan has frequently criticized the mainstream media for lacking transparency and accountability, making his refusal consistent with his previous stances.

Supporters of Rogan view his decision as a stand against political manipulation, valuing integrity over high-profile interviews.
...

---

Do you think Kamala will gain more votes from people that would never vote Republican or people that would never vote for a convicted felon/rapist/fascist that spent the last 4 years hiding classified documents from the FBI (and showing them to journalists), undermining trust in American elections with lies, and attacking judges, prosecutors and their families while being tried in various civil and criminal trials before being found guilty/liable?

This is the same impression I have, although I understand that ideologically there are people who would never vote for Trump and/or would vote for any Democratic candidate against the Republican.


Here I think you are overdoing it. Try to put yourself in the shoes of people who don't think like you.


Haven't you realized that his thinking is much more complicated than that?


I won't vote because I don't live in the USA.

Nah... Trump is "shhhmahtah" he knows more and has a trademark on the phrase "like the world has never sheen".


Obvious problem, you will not vote it because you know there is no chance of it winning. I hope Dems also understand what is at stake and send the guy where he should be: trying to get elected as a candidate for a party that can actually win. Reminds me too much of Ross Perot - probably good intentions, but causing problems for the candidate that actually has an option.


I hope I do not have any secondary effect.

I think Trump should hire theymos because he can lay out Trump's policies and priorities in one paragraph better than Trump himself in 3 hours.

Given that he effectively has more freedom than others in that sense, it might just happen that he is saying what he is saying - not judging nor defending, I disagree with a large chunk of it but I can see some logic on it.

That is the logic which I have found lacking in most other pro-Trumps as they simple start the conversation from "facts" that they consider absolute truth by virtue of simply Trump saying so. For example, if you make this statement:


You base argument -  an educated woman that has a long career and had a productive debate in TV is stupid and cannot talk - is already beyond any possible political discussion.

And I have an answer if want one, e.g. "I have no doubt Trump can talk a geological age into the next one, but I would rather have 1 minute of truth than 10 hours of lies". See? That is very easy, but led nowhere.

Or look...


I got a better answer... "first I tell Stormy to go away and the I go pee, then I look for my underwear in the living, then I start thinking pants.

Theymos should stop playing Washington Post, man up like Elon  and declare his support for Trump. Bezos don’t have the courage to say it because he is afraid of losing the democrat money he is riding on but I don’t think theymos has anything to be afraid of. Let’s unite against communism as a community and drive these evil demons back to the hell hole they came from.

“First they say, ‘Sir, how do you do it? How do you wake up in the morning and put on your pants? And I say, ‘Well, I don’t think about it too much.’ I don’t want to think about it because if I think about it too much maybe I won’t want to do it, but I love it because we’re going to do something for this country that’s never been done before.”

Trump is better than Kabala in every way possible. If you see them equals you should get your head examined by a doctor as something ain't working right in there. On one hand we have Trump who can do a podcast 3 hours straight and talk about anything, and then we have Kabala who can't create one full sentence that makes any sense and constantly laughing like a mental patient.

I can't even believe she is getting any votes at this point. She shouldn't be getting more than 2%. This is an IQ test and the US is failing hard, it doesn't change a damn thing even if Trump wins.

But who am talking to... These people elected Biden who was as crap as Kabala...

Thank you for such a detailed explanation. In this regard I wanted to ask you, since you have been interested in politics, is there any candidate that has not been terrible for you?

I would also like to comment that I find very interesting the Make America Healthy Again movement of RFK Jr, that until now in no campaign I had seen anything like this, and I believe that if it is carried out it will greatly improve the life and health of millions of people.

paxmao, I'm going to remove you from the temporary friendly ignore I put you in.

Finally, someone made an analysis instead of throwing slogans.

I am missing some about "reproductive rights" AKA "choice" AKA "abortion" - Trump is going decades back on rights.

Agreed on the debate. it is a useful skill, but perhaps you can pass the ball, the caveat is that Trump in the past has been known to ignore the advice of the people who have been working their whole life on a topic and decide that "he is smarter". He is not great at delegation either.

On the effects on crypto, I consider your view better informed than mine, so minus one for Kam. Another topic would be the US dollar. On that, many believe that Trump wants a weaker USD, which would favour crypto.

Also, agreed, Kam is a "I try my best" (the best for her) candidate, not a resolutive one, I would have liked one of the governors who have proven records - probably all anyway with a degree of psychopathy. A funny - the election is the psycho against the narcissist.

I do not clearly understand Trumps strategy towards NATO and that is scary. I posted on non-proliferation because I think that the moment the nuclear umbrella of the US support is in question, most of EU would have a serious reasons to get over-armed with nukes (perhaps reaching 1000 - 2000 warheads). I am not comfortable with that. The US should not be particularly happy of having many countries that can end the world, it could eventually happen (not joking here). This exceed my other worries.

On how war-prone the candidates are, just as you said I could respect Trump's discourse on peace if, as you said, it was a peace that could be made to last in all the three major conflict zones (Ukraine, Middle East and the Pacific), but my guess is that it is not, so it is not a plus one for the guy.

On Ukraine, Ruzzia wants NATO well away from Moscow. This means re-owning Ukraine. If they are successful in war... why not another one in four years? The endgame is Ruzzia with a long border with NATO, but very close to Central Europe as opposed to very close to Moscow. The cost of maintaining deterrence along such border is bigger for Europe, in my view, than maintaining the deterrence in Ukraine. Trumps stance would weaken the existing NATO alliance.

On Taiwan, I do not see China invading Taiwan in the next few years, nor (I hope I am right) in the next decade. It is a porcupine and as a Chinese friend of mine said: "the Chinese are too busy becoming rich to bother with politics". China is not just looking at Taiwan, they are setting bases all over the Pacific and extending sometimes very aggressively.

About the Middle East, there cannot be peace when peace is not wanted. It seems that the powers that be in the region have many things in their minds, other than living in peace and are dragging the rest of the world. My thinking is that Israel has now carte-blanche because the moment they attack Iran's oil exporting facilities Kam looses the elections (price of oil). It may be less so after the elections no matter the candidate and I think that is why they are pressing as hard as they can in Lebanon - RE Gaza, there seem to be many bad reasons for them act as they are acting.

On borders, I doubt that anybody would be able to implement a mass deportation process and frankly, stopping immigration is easier said than done. I would also need to note here that Republicans did stop a bill intended to curb it while saying there was a problem.

But, OK, Trump will try harder and no matter the result he would "succeed". However, I am not sure immigration is really a problem for the US other than psychologically. There is work, there is room and you do not get much for free so basically you are building population mass. There is data showing that illegal immigrants have less criminal activity than the legal residents.

One problem I see with Trump is about the use of information -either fake or near fake. It is creating a modus operandi followed worldwide to disastrous effects.

Debate performance is ultimately meaningless. The worst debater on Earth could be a fine president: he'd just delegate anything debate-like to someone else. The problem with Trump is not his debating skill.


No, but neither is Harris. These are both terrible candidates.

If Trump wins, hundreds of thousands of lives will be ruined due to his deportation/immigration policies. It'll be both an economic and a humanitarian disaster. The world's economy (as well as the US economy specifically) will be hurt by his aggressive deglobalization. He'll support Israel's aggression against its neighbors. He'll support friendly-to-him authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia as they oppress their population, and look the other way if they invade their neighbors. He will reinstitute the maximum-pressure campaigns against Iran and Cuba, which was a humanitarian catastrophe, and risks dragging the US into a larger war with those countries. While I wouldn't support sending US troops to defend Taiwan, there's a high risk of Trump signing a "big beautiful deal" with China which explicitly lets them invade Taiwan in return for some nominal benefits for the US. Similar for Ukraine. Trump and his allies will promote a xenophobic attitude against anyone out of the norm: immigrants, non-Christians, sexually-unusual people, certain ethnic communities (not due to racism, exactly, but due to a dislike of culturally-unusual people), etc. He'll promote an anti-science attitude. He'll promote legislation which hurts Internet freedom in the name of "protecting children", such as restrictions on social media, attacking section 230, etc. By promoting his own crypto scams, he'll give crypto a bad name. He'll ramp up the war on drugs, and hamper criminal justice reform more broadly. I'd like it if he'd take his experience being the victim of state oppression/surveillance to eliminate those Orwellian systems, but he'll probably actually enhance those systems and use them against his political enemies. He will aim to basically destroy the bureaucracy, which is good in some respects, but it'll cause a lot of chaos, and a lot of innocent people will be hurt thereby. Etc.

If Harris wins, she'll continue the Biden administration's squeezing of the crypto industry, the end goal of which is to make it almost impossible to legally use crypto except through a financial intermediary (which makes crypto pointless). Like Trump, she will support Israel's aggression against their neighbors -- maybe just slightly less loudly. Like Trump, she'll add tarriffs and barriers to immigration -- just less. If China invades Taiwan, she'll send US troops to their deaths there. She'll ramp up US involvement in Ukraine in a way which could very well lead to WWIII. She's campaigning with the war-criminal Cheneys. From her time as CA AG, it's clear that she has zero problem with oppressing random people just because it's convenient for her personally or for the government; this mindset will permeate her administration, to the detriment of anyone put at its mercy. She'll continue the Biden administration's policy of persecuting anyone who stands in her administration's way (I'm not just talking about the prosecutions against Trump: see eg. this recent comment from Democrat Jamie Dimon). She doesn't actually believe in anything (she has much less ideology than Biden, and maybe even less than Trump), so she will do whatever is most politically beneficial to her; she'll only care about things that can affect her own power/legacy. She'll regulate the Internet to suppress "misinformation", also probably attacking section 230. As a Democrat, she believes in big, strong government, so she'll raise taxes, continue the Biden administration's crushing regulatory agenda, increase the size of government overall, and increase the surveillance of US citizens. She'll appoint liberal judges to the courts, who won't constrain government power at all. Etc.

I judge that Harris is slightly worse on the whole, but I'm certainly not supporting either of these psychopaths. Once the result is known, I will be relieved that we avoided the other one, but horrified at what we got.

Will Trump get that option when he is meeting with Putin or Xi or Kim? Will he be able to say, "oh sorry, but I am not great a international negotiations, I hope you do not mind if I cast an invisibility spell".

My guess is that with Kam you will have to live a minimum of 4 years if she wins. With Trump... a would not be so sure about his intentions. Who knows, maybe he will want to extend on the grounds that "he has to make up for the "stolen" election".

But regardless, Do you consider Trumps conduct and behaviour, as someone who is going to be a leader of nation, acceptable in general terms?

I didn't watch it, but I heard that Trump did well on Joe Rogan's podcast. That'll probably draw quite a few votes, considering that the podcast has so many listeners, and many of them are politically disengaged. And I agree that it was smart for Trump not to debate again, since he's a terrible debater.

All of the other things you mentioned will IMO have little impact. They're just tiny news stories. Harris's appearance on Fox may have actually helped slightly on net, since even though it generated some minor bad headlines, it removed to some extent the criticism that she wasn't doing tough interviews.

Apparently AOC and Walz are doing (or already did) some gaming on Twitch today. In principle I feel like that could be a good strategy: similar to the Joe Rogan interview, it's a much more casual form of politicking, targeting a good demographic. AOC legitimately likes gaming, and she's fairly charismatic. But probably it'll be cringy and boring. These sorts of casual, less political, less fake events are IMO good things to do at this point. Harris should go on a cooking show or something, since that's one of her actual passions.

Trump definitely has momentum in the headlines and polls, though I've heard that Harris's ground-game is massively better than Trump's. (That's stuff like using public records combined with social media posts to find people who are probably leaning Democrat but are likely not to actually vote, and sending someone to knock on their door and badger them until they commit to definitely voting ASAP.) This sort of thing doesn't make headlines, but it could make the difference in the election.

What do you think of the electoral strategies being pursued by both sides? I may be biased but I think Trump is doing much better than Kamala, starting with the fact that he refused to debate her a second time. You can tell he's a showman, he trolled Kamala by going to McDonald's to fry fries, he was funny at the Al Smith Catholic charity dinner, which Kamala didn't go to, and yesterday he went on Joe Rogan's podcast, which already has 27 million plays, plus the clips that are pulled from there and posted on social media.

Meanwhile I think it was a mistake for Kamala to go to Fox, because in principle she had much more to lose than to win, but on top of that it seems that she does not prepare the questions she is going to be asked and if she prepares them she does a terrible job. Even in a soft interview in CNN sometimes she didn't know what to answer, she rambled in the answers and had a nervous laugh.