Bitcoin Forum

If you think you've seen this before it's because you have (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208356.0).

This is a new bet that originated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208356.msg64575392#msg64575392

Contract:


Signature: IEnRzFbmfG3Do64fRlzjTOidiLqCI/ja4VwDrZ1WDoI4D2C8I2BUbydpdxcXbzY1uWlVMTzTDLqyWBt20902xeI=
(signed with my address 18pTKHyCFyr5Gk3LHN4wKke1hUaT3wUnjb)

---

Local rules: this particular bet, as well as betting on 2024 presidential election in general, and discussing the election itself is on topic. Everything else, including the usual P&S bullshit (you know who you are) is not.

Reserved.

To put things in context, I was commenting in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets thread in the Gambling section and I thought of proposing a small bet (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5488428.msg64492495#msg64492495) just for fun but no one took it up. Yesterday I saw that the previous eddie13 vs suchmoon thread had been bumped and it occurred to me to propose the bet to suchmoon.

As I have repeatedly said in the forum I don't like Trump as a person and I don't like some of the things he has done in the past, but I think many of the policies he is proposing are better than what Kamala is proposing and that's what I will defend in this thread.

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I accept the 0.01BTC bet vs suchmoon under the conditions set forth in the following message:
https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6457/64578127.html
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
bc1qlqawpy5yl7t3z9vfusuyxk9h0n42r8y8jwrd9s
J8qS5RP5KeAofR5G3p/wxQMUYr2v0BFhS4k7wZ7wj4aoVUwIosK7Zp2ovoRuIl8MYd/Rxl5oNSGtdgRMIXkO9hE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The heat is on! (https://youtu.be/uZD8HKVKneI?si=G7y3dTAD_fhKIVUT&t=20) ;D  

I'm disappointed in this election, but it seems a lot is at stake. Feels like the extreme sides of the left and right are up for election, with no other options available.  smh. :-\

Good luck gentlemen!

https://y.yarn.co/f801c042-d2dd-402d-a606-676ec7d94553_text.gif

Tbh I don't see them being much more radical than Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan.

In the case of Kamala, what worries me is that she is on the way to Peronism, which is a kind of social communism, a variant, with disastrous results, like all of them.

It consists of demonizing the rich and making an ever increasing percentage of the population dependent on state aid with more and more state control, which in Kamala's case would be aided by CBDCs, a non-stop increase in government spending and a fast-paced devaluation of the currency. The US has been able to export its inflation for many decades, but this does not have to last forever.

Filling the country with millions of immigrants by leaps and bounds to whom you are going to give state aid and accelerate the process to obtain residency and/or citizenship, the Democrats do it from a business perspective (disguised as humanitarianism), thinking, correctly I believe, that a great majority of those immigrants once their situation is regularized will vote for Democrants for life.

This is not exclusive to the USA; in the UK, for example, the new government is also taking giant steps in this direction, accompanied by an obvious, radical and generalized tax increase, that has already begun to expel capital and talent from the country.

TBH I don't even know what Trump's real policies are, he's talking nonsense most of the time and has been trying to distance himself from the only somewhat-policy-like document that I know of ("project 2025"). That said, I think some of Kamala's "policies" seem to be targeted at Trump's voters (she's gonna reduce grocery prices because that's what Fox News has been talking about) and have little to do with how the real world works. Dumb and dumberer type of deal we got going on.

Still, the two GOP weirdos are the most absurd and pathetic presidential ticket I've seen in my lifetime, and that includes Reagan, both Clintons, a bunch of Bushes, and Sarah Palin. So just as a sign of faith in the sanity of the electorate I have to make this bet.


Verified.

Well, leaving aside what he may or may not say, I think it is quite clear that he is going to lower taxes and simplify administrative procedures, as well as give authorizations and stimulate the drilling of oil instead of reducing it by going green as Biden did and then having to beg dictators like Maduro or the Al Saud to extract the oil that the USA had stopped extracting because of his policies. He already did that when he was in office and has said he will do it again.

In the case of Bitcoin I don't trust much what he is going to do, it seems to me that he doesn't understand it and has repeatedly shown signs of it. I also think that he went to the BC for pure electoral interest. But I do believe he will stop the launch of CBDCs.


I quite agree, it seems to me that in this election many will vote for one candidate or another not so much because they believe they are ideal but because they believe they are the least bad.

Wanting to control prices on the basis of a political decree has been known not to work since the edict of Diocletian. Price controls can only work in short periods of time or in very specific sectors. The idea that food prices are going to be lowered with price controls is either not knowing anything or knowing that it does not work and making populism out of it.


So just to understand you better, what would be your ideal candidate, Sanders? I would have preferred Ron de Santis on the Republican side, which I guess for you is almost as evil as Trump.

Ok, so given these conditions it would seem that it is not an equilibrated proposal. I mean, both are near in the polls, popular vote an swing vote are largely undecided and it is fine to bet 1:1. But, given the conditions, there is an advantage to Suchmoon - that is, If any of the candidates dies before the election, the other player is certain to get a draw or a win. For now two attempts have been made on Trump vs zero for Kam so...

Yeah he lowered taxes in 2017 (or rather signed the bill republicans cooked up; I doubt he knows what's really in it) and then added tariffs which allegedly "gyna" was supposed to pay but we all know it's just another tax on consumers. Not to mention that the massive budget hole will have to be plugged with taxes in the future, and the tax breaks have expiration built-in wheres tariffs don't, but that's their usual kick the can 4 years down the road thing, nothing new there.

There is a lot more problems with it, such as the federal tax rate already being at rock bottom for most Americans, so further cuts are quite useless to them and will likely result in higher taxes at state/local level to compensate for reduced federal spending (IIRC federal taxes are already less than half of average person's taxes).

That's not to say there isn't government waste that needs to be addressed but Trump and trumpists aren't trying to do anything about it. Just pandering to the base, we'll cut taxes, and someone else will pay for it.


I don't know if I have the "ideal" candidate, just some less bad than others. I don't recall what specific policies Sanders was proposing. I would definitely support a serious candidate who would offer e.g. a proper healthcare reform. But that's unlikely to happen in my lifetime, what with healthcare lobby being probably third most powerful after defense and gun lobbies.

Also anyone with a backbone to stand up to the whole racist immigration rhetoric would always have my support for obvious reasons.

Why do you say that? I don't see anything explicitly about that in the conditions, and suchmoon told me by PM that if one of the two died at this point they would still be on the ballot the same. Maybe he tried to scam me, lol.


I am going to agree on this. Although I am generally in favor of leaving things to the private sector, I am not so much in healthcare because demand is inelastic. If the prices go up in a restaurant or the service gets worse you can go to another one or eat at home, you have several options. But if you have a heart attack you need to be treated now and you are not going to shop around.

Besides, things like this indicate that there is something sick, never better said, with how things work in the USA:

100 million people in America are saddled with medical debt (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/16/americans-medical-debt/)

Medical bills account for 40% of bankruptcies (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127305/) (this article is old but I assume things haven't changed much).

The gambling sector has not historically given examples of good self-regulation either, and in this case I also believe that state intervention is a good thing.


Well, the racist rhetoric like “they are eating the cats” is worthy of an asshole but here I think we will differ because uncontrolled immigration processes, massive in a period of time, bring problems and historically it has been so (ghetto formation, non-integration, pressure on public services, etc.).

In the same way that saying “they are eating the cats” is a bullshit that wants to demonize all immigrants, thinking that if you put in millions of immigrants in a short period of time without background checks they will all be wonderful people who will not cause any problems is another bullshit. And I believe that in the case of the Democrats they do it from a business perspective as I explained above, it is a way to buy voters.

Immigrants can't vote until they're citizens. Contrary to popular belief in some qanon circles, there is no fast-track citizenship for asylum seekers (which is I think what most anti-immigration rhetoric is focused against). They have to apply for permanent resident status, which comes with all background checks and everything else that any permanent resident has to go through. There is even a medical exam involved for some reason. After that, getting a criminal conviction can result in deportation. Even something as benign (for a citizen) as DUI or being homeless can mean deportation (for a permanent resident). At the end of all this, after 5 years, one can apply for citizenship. Once they have it, I don't know why they would need to vote for one party or the other. But if one party claims they're eating dogs and cats, I can see how they might be reluctant to vote for it.

The US needs ~1 million immigrants every year just to sustain population size and economic growth. Trump killed immigration reform bill so that he could continue to use this issue as a campaign slogan. That's pretty much all there is to know about his immigration policies.

If the goal was to somehow increase the "quality" of immigrants so that that don't cause "problems", Trump and his party are really terrible at expressing those ideas because I haven't heard anything of the sort. The reality is that they just want to rile up the base against brown people without explicitly saying so.

If the goal is stop immigration or slow it down that only certain demographics can come in, then they will kill the economy but that's again just another can down the road.

IIRC ~100 million Americans are first or second generation immigrants, and they tend to be (particularly 2nd gen) around average or better than average on metrics like income, education, crime, etc and tend to vote similar to other people in their age range, so it seems that the evil Democrat plan to buy votes is a big failure.

This country was built on immigration and hopefully with continue to be, otherwise we're all fucked and not in a pleasant consensual way.

I was aware immigration was an important part of the building of the United States as a nation, but regularly I had this impression they did not actually outperform the average when came to those metrics you are talking about, but it makes sense when one keeps in mind the huge brain drain there are in many developing countries.
For example, I am from Venezuela and I live in Venezuela, with the lastest humanitarian parole and other means people have managed to move to the United States I am impressed with the amount of enginners from my college who have decided to give the big step and move to that country, it is not only desperate people seeking to flee from poverty, but actual professionals who just want to have their family a better future while at the same time working their ass off in humane conditions.

In contrast, though I must mention it is unfortunate Tren de Aragua has managed to get some of their people there in the States. Criminals from this country are really something else. There is no country in which there are no criminals, though. Perhaps, the Vatican city?

Well, I said that this would be accompanied by reforms to make nationality and/or residency easier to acquire, for example:

Kamala Harris as President would make it easier for you to move to the US (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/migrate/kamala-harris-as-president-would-make-it-easier-for-you-to-move-to-the-us/articleshow/113214974.cms?from=mdr)


I don't know if the site is a right-wing nut conspiracy but it is certainly not the first time I hear something like this and it is in line with the plans of the Labor party in the UK and the socialist parties in Europe. Fill the country with lots of immigrants, very fast, and speed up the procedures for them to get citizenship and residency. Besides, I don't know if expulsions are carried out in the USA, but in many European countries they are a dead letter due to the quota system. Almost nobody is expelled.


The million immigrants are easy to get even if the Mexican border is closed tight. According to CNN (which sees it as wonderful, of course) net immigration in 2023 was 3.3 million people. That's 2.3 more than needed.


Well, maybe I'm looking at this from a European perspective but and I'm focusing mostly on mass migration processes that occur in short periods of time. In Europe that has led to ghettoization, not integration, and obviously the second generation is not coping any better than the first generation. The ghettos of Marseilles would be an example, but there are many others.


Yes, but we are not discussing that here. All prosperous countries need immigration, the question is how many people come in and how fast.


So you mean they are fleeing the wonderful communist country of Venezuela, to go to the shitty capitalist country of the USA where the American dream no longer exists, workers can't get ahead because they are oppressed by capitalism and the like? I thought the logical thing would be the other way around. And especially if Trump wins I predict that there is going to be an emigration of tens of millions from the USA to Venezuela.


Now more seriously (unlike the previous comment). That's what happens, if you let in millions of people unchecked, there will be a majority like the engineers you were commenting on who are simply looking for a better life by earning it honestly but you are also letting in gangs of criminals.

Great idea to bet on that, good luck to you both!

To be completely honest, I'm more of a Trump guy. I think they both suck and the US could use a better president, but like I said a few times before, I'd never support a socialist.


Trump loses a point here and that's not the only thing I dislike him for.

He's known for his sexist comments, low level jokes, quoting made up facts and statistics... But on the other hand, I'd rather see him argue with leaders like Putin, because Harris is going to fail at it just like Biden did. I'd rather see that grumpy stubborn man confront other stubborn men than a woman who thinks her country maintains strong relations with North Korea  :P

Harris is going to be a 'fake it till you make it' kind of leader.

The quote you posted literally refers to skilled workers, students, etc. Exactly the kind of migrants any country needs. So this would be a sensible immigration reform that republicans would be vehemently against just because it takes away their talking points, not because it's somehow bad for the country. They would rather launder money through the pointless wall construction and threaten mass deportations and other PR bullshit, keeping the base energized with the migrant flow through the southern border instead of actually trying to solve the issue.

I am not sure this is communism, socialism or capitalism, all I know this is a kleptocracy, people in power use their position of power as leverage to steal as much money as possible from income coming from both oil fields and gold mines, which is already against the basic rules of classic capitalism and socialism.
The former head of our national petroleum industry (basically the minister of petroleum) was caught red-handed with 30 billion dollars in cash, cryptocurrency and literal gold bars in his property...

I am expecting some people to come back if Trump wins in November, specially those who are there undocumented Even some who are there legally thanks to the Humanitary parole program will reconsider to come back after earning some money, nobody wants to live and work in a country in which they are going to be considered aliens and unwanted.

This country is literally kidnapped by crooks.

Not at all, it is just my interpretation of what you contract says. Let's say Trump is successfully removed from the gene pool of humanity violently, then another candidate will take his place. In this case, either Kam wins and Suchmoon wins the bet provided all goes without unexpected events or the other Rep candidate wins in which case another candidate got the majority of the votes an it is a draw (impeded the others to reach 277).


There is no free meal in foreign politics. Trump can stop the war just like I could stop the war if elected for President. All you need to do is give half of Ukraine to Putin and ensure that it cannot join NATO nor have a proper army so that Putin takes the other half after licking his wounds from this war.

Everyone has a peace plan, it is that some of these guarantee a war in a few years.

AFAIK it's past the deadline to add someone new to the ballot in most states (keep in mind that mail-in voting has already started; ballots are likely being printed in states/counties; etc). So Trump would stay on the ballot even if he's dead.

Also I wouldn't be so sure that if it was possible for Trump to drop out, Kamala would automatically win. Seems like many Kamala voters are energized by anti-Trump feelings.

At any rate, if such an improbable thing were to happen, maybe involving courts / SC, I think we would find an amicable solution. Probably call it a draw.

I may have been disappointed with that election too, I wasn't born yet but I'd guess it was also a different time and the left/center/right lines of the country may have been different in terms of what they tolerated. Trump has occasionally been closer/more tolerant to white supremacy groups than any president in 2024 should ever be, plus has said some pretty crazy shit about people in general which doesn't line up to American values. Then the other side seems to want to destroy the economy through spending and taxing the rich, who then just seem to pass their additional costs onto the middle class and we all get so broke we start needing free food programs, free housing, and then we're heading into communism. They also don't seem to have any clue on how to handle conflicts in the middle east, so the only thing I feel like I can agree with them on these days is "Trump isn't a good choice", which he's not, nor is Kamala, and that's why this election sucks. :-\

After watching the VP debate, I'd rather see both of these guys running for president, but I'd probably vote Vance there because he just makes more sense to me. I think Trump (cleverly) picked a VP who is more centered, but the reality is Trump will still make the decisions and Vance will have to go along with it. It's sad because I kinda feel like both of the VP's are more passionate about the country than either presidential candidate.



I feel like this somehow has to be done before they come into the country. I'm all for immigration and agree the country was built on it, and many immigrants have helped the country, but it feels like these days many are inside of the country (without being vetted at all) and posing a burden on local resources without contributing to taxes or otherwise, at a much higher rate than ever before, while all of this is happening for (at least) 5 years?   This is assuming they apply and don't just find ways to make it on their own on the streets, which also isn't what we want. When people get background checks just to work somewhere, they're usually not living in the building until they are cleared... there must be other safe places (maybe ally countries?) we can have them go until they are cleared?

Among other things (like which country would agree to this?), there are laws that establish due process for asylum. And Trump killed the immigration reform bill, which would have reduced the asylum case backlog with a combination of more resources to process those cases and more authority for the CBP to turn people away at the border. Trump should know that immigration laws have to followed (or changed) because his own executive order attempting to circumvent the law was shot down by courts in 2017... or 2018 or whenever that was.

The bottom line is, regardless how you feel about immigration, Trump and GOP are not going to solve any of the problems with it. They will milk the publicity as much as they can and then forget it until the next election when they can use it again.

Not really because what would be the last straw, and no one in the USA would buy it, would be to talk about facilitating the process for illegal immigrants but not for legal ones. Also, in the same article it talks about facilitating their access to benefits sooner, which is an important point of what we are talking about. The massive illegal immigration promoted by leftist politicians both in the USA and in Europe treats them as benefit recipients from the very first moment, something that would have been unheard of several decades ago.

Also, this is the Dems, so we can see where this is going.

California Dems want to help undocumented immigrants buy homes – during presidential race (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/california-undocumented-immigrants-homes-00176253)

In other words, these are not wonderful reforms that will bring only talented people and will make the country much better, here it is about filling the country with illegal immigrants very quickly, facilitating the naturalization process, giving them aid from the first moment and thus turning them into happy customers who will always vote Democrat (the same can be applied to Labor in the UK or other socialist parties in Europe).


Despite our differences of thought, I am quite sure of this.


Well, I don't live in the USA but for preference I think I would have preferred almost any other candidates than Kamala and Trump.


I agree 100%.


Well, at least you admit that immigration brings problems, lol, it's not an imigration of only talented people and students that all it does is improve the country.

GOP may not solve the problems, but it certainly won't make them worse, because if Harris wins, no matter how much she is saying now, she will leave the border wide open and many more millions will continue to enter than theoretically needed. Pretty sure Trump is going to close the border.

Not sure about Europe but in the US illegal immigration has been on a steady decline and mostly consists of people overstaying their visas. That's obviously not sufficient for media fearmongering so the new favorite angle of attack in right-wing media seems to be calling any immigrants they don't like "illegal". Asylum seekers? Illegal even though the law says they're legally here. Haitians? Very illegal because cats and dogs. Etc.

I don't know how that helps anything. At best it dilutes and confuses any potential argument that could be made on the topic.

Exactly.. probably none of them, and maybe they would have similar reasons on why we shouldn't want it happening at this scale in the US. Although, idk, maybe there could be ways to incentivize countries to take asylum seekers in until they've been correctly vetted.


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
* appeared to be a good combination of sources, but if there are better, lmk!
Overall, it seems like we've continually been going up in % no matter who it is?

Seems about right, since AFAIK the last substantial immigration law was passed in 1960s.

I could consider Trump the best candidate under such circumstances... or wait, it would be Vance? Does this work the same before the president is elected? I mean, someone out there sends Trump to feed the worms, then he is still wins the electoral college and then ... well the constitution of the US does not state anywhere that the president has to be alive?????

So, he gets elected and succession automatically goes to that weirdo guy Vance?

I think that's what would happen if Trump croaks between January 6 and January 20. I'm not sure about the period before Congress "counts" the votes, i.e. before January 6. It may go up to the supreme court, which tends to pick the most absurd medieval interpretation when faced with ambiguities in the constitution, so maybe they will declare George III the president.

I think you have slipped up here, if you are going to question this basic point we are not going to be able to debate this point. ibminer has posted a link to a graph that combines all types of immigrants and we can see that the trend is clearly up. I have looked and I see in several sources that there has been a clear increase in illegal immigration but I will give you the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61989673), which is something like CNN, it is not usually accused of being a right-wing nut:

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/10/04/iYHSq.png

In Europe what happens is that politicians also deny or minimize the problem that we can all see.


Well, there we would have to see what Vance said when his microphone was cut off. If having legal status can be achieved by illegally crossing the border and applying for status with CBP one app for sure, all the millions coming in will be legal asylum seekers.

I'm not sure where Vance was ultimately going, but Vance started off saying the CBP one app was created in 2020 before his mic was cut (CBS == lame!), this was to counter the lie that Walz had shouted out about the CPB one app being created in the 90's, which is not accurate.

The fact is, weirdly enough, that the CBP one app apparently began development in 2018 (under Trump's reign) and was released in 2020, also under Trump. I've gotten the impression from reading that Biden/Kamala may have modified it to make it easier for people to come through who use it, but I found it interesting that it appeared to be created under Trump. Either way, it does seem to have created a more streamlined process to get people quick asylum access to the country.

Border apprehensions include those that have been turned back for example.

I'm looking at the number of illegal immigrants living in the US. It's a decreasing number and ridiculously low to begin with, considering how much noise is being made about it. Around 11 million, or about 3.4% of population in 2022, down from a peak of 12m/4% in 2006-ish. There was an increase from 10.5 million in recent years but it remains to be seen if that's a long term trend.

Source - DHS: https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/unauthorized-immigrants/estimates-unauthorized-immigrant-population-residing

Most of those people are not swimming across Rio Grande. They come with a tourist visa or some other valid paperwork and stay after it expires.


If the law says you can apply for asylum then you can apply for asylum. The law that was going to be changed (to reduce the asylum backlog) until Trump killed it so that he could milk the issue for the campaign. So Vance can BS all he wants but facts show that (1) this is the law and (2) he (or at least the campaign he's part of) is against changing it.

And BTW the number of people with this temporary status is ~2 million or so. Clearly defeating the absurd implication that anyone can just apply through an app and become legal.


I think he said the law (or this particular asylum provision or whatever) has been in place since 1990s, but I may be wrong, I wasn't really listening to the debate just saw some clips here and there.

Yes of course, but if they go up a lot it is usually a clear indication that those who enter without being caught also go up a lot.


You mean the following (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/), don't you?

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/10/04/iYpof.png

As far as I know here we are talking about Kamala vs Trump, and what you see in that and other charts that only go to 2022 is a change in trend. According to you we will have to see if this is a long term trend but I am quite clear that this trend will continue upwards until 2024. It is not much over the total? That's where I don't comment.


So, you are surprised that those who cause alarm are those who cross the Rio Grande, according to you because of racism... To begin with, those who have entered with a visa have already passed some formalities and we know that they are mostly students or skilled workers, of the others we know nothing.

Don't be surprised if I don't put much effort in discussing these points from now on because it is tiring to argue when you know that it is very difficult to reach points of agreement. Normally in these debates, instead of looking for points of agreement, what people do is to look for arguments to reinforce their position, and it can end up in endless discussions.

Re-watching I think you're probably right, he was talking about the laws put into place in the 90s, which Vance was saying are being streamlined through an app created in 2020 and it seems like they are now able to grant this status at a higher/faster rate.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-cbs-cuts-vances-mic-during-fact-check-on-immigration

CBS essentially made the statement that they are legal immigrants in Springfield after Vance (and I think Walz as well) had discussed them, Vance interjected to explain why they are called legal, and the explanation was the CBP one app and how it was being used to streamline the parole/asylum status, to which Walz said the "laws" were established in the 90's, Vance then says the app has not been in the books since the 90s and that Kamala created it, then mic is cut.

It's hard to say who is responsible for this app, I don't know how the organization itself runs but there were changes in commissioners for the US Customers/Border while this app was apparently being developed, I'd have to guess whoever is in control of it at any given time can pick and choose how easily they want to approve applications.

AFAIK the app allows appointment scheduling and/or pre-screening, doesn't really provide legal status, and likely helps CBP itself more than anything else (otherwise they'd have to staff more phone lines etc). It's just a catchy soundbite like 99% of immigration rhetoric from Trump/Vance campaign... "you can use an app as a magic wand"... no, you can't. If it wasn't an app, they would say "there is a website", or "you can call a phone number", etc with some sort of ominous context, even though none of these things would be illegal.


This was in response to the chart of border apprehensions that you posted and claimed or at least implied that it shows rapid growth of illegal immigration. It doesn't, and I provided three reasons why. I didn't say illegal border crossings don't exist, it's just nowhere near the scale that the political noise may insinuate.

I also didn't say anything about racism, you made the link between my earlier comment about "racist rhetoric" and southern border crossings on your own. "Racist rhetoric" that I'm thinking of is the implication that someone disliked by GOP candidates is "illegal", even though they're not breaking any laws an have legal status, e.g. Springfield Haitians. It may be tempting to think "this is a gray area, matter of opinion, no big deal" but it creates a growing perception that immigrants are often or mostly illegal, which couldn't be further from the truth and creates real dangers, such as the recent bomb threats in Springfield. It's rooted in misunderstanding of how immigration works and exploited by scumbags like JD.

Well, that would be for starters assuming the official statistics are correct. Statistics can be used to debate but they are far from being firm, not only because some statistics contradict others, but because I am sick and tired of seeing debates in which opponents use the same statistics to defend the opposite position.

Before I also wrote an answer about what you argue about legal status that among the quotes I do not know why in the end it has not been published (I must have made some mistake) but I came to say that the legal status thing is very funny, in the end what Kamala does is to facilitate that you can get a legal status by applying as a refugee even if you do not come from a country at war but if you are a plumber who comes to seek a better economic future.

By the way, I don't want to personalize too much but it sounds to me that you said in a comment (years ago) that you had lived in a communist country. Is that so? If you are an immigrant in the USA I would understand your position more, although you don't have to answer this if you don't want to, of course.

That's correct, and I have dealt with USCIS and other agencies enough to know that what Trump/Vance say about immigration is mostly bullshit. I don't know if my personal experience affects my position on immigration as a whole - I had this view that immigration should be mostly merit-based with sensible quotas for refugees from dangerous places since before I came here or even thought of coming here - but I certainly appreciate the complexity of the issue a lot more now.

The fact that they blatantly say they would deport people who are legally residing in the US (just because they don't like the law) is so absurd that it shouldn't be acceptable in a political campaign but here we are. If they can do that, they can then say "this green card you have was obtained using the law we don't like so we'll deport you too", and also "this citizenship you got is based on the law we don't like so off you go", and also "don't matter that you're born here because we don't like your parents so go to Mexico", and you can tell from the current attitude among their supporters that all of that would be perfectly normal and valid to them.

What comes after what I put in bold is perhaps an exaggerated assumption on your part. In any self-respecting democracy you cannot be retroactively wronged. They can benefit you retroactively but not harm you.

In this case, for example, if Kamala takes office on January 20, she could retroactively effective January 1 give citizenship to all the people who are in an irregular situation in the USA, or propose to pass such a law, it is just an example.

But Trump could not take away the citizenship of someone who has it because his parents are from Mexico. He could propose in the future a law, or a reform of the constitution, according to which nationality would not be granted in such cases.

Nor would I like to focus the debate exclusively on the immigration issue. In another thread you criticized lowering taxes on billionaires and said you wouldn't mind across-the-board tax cuts as long as there were no what you called loopholes such as dividends and capital gains for the wealthiest. Would you like us to comment on this aspect?

They literally said that they will deport Haitians, who didn't do anything wrong, followed the law, and are here legally. Can they actually do it? I don't know but I wouldn't bet my life on it. And good luck trying to litigate your way back into the US after they send you back to whatever country they think you came from. Trump said he would deport up to 20 million immigrants, which far exceeds illegal immigrants plus TPS so it must include some green card holders or citizens or both, although that could be interpreted as him not having a clue as to how many illegal immigrants are actually in the country. Dumb or dangerous, makes little difference to me.

Also at some point during the first campaign or his first presidency Trump did actually claim that he could revoke some green cards. So it's not an exaggeration at all.


Qualified dividends and long-term capital gains are taxed at lower rates than regular tax brackets. This makes no sense and benefits only those who can fudge their income to be coming from those sources, as opposed to regular payroll, i.e. large business owners. Regular wage earners, self-employed, and many small business owners don't have this option.

There is already a social security tax cap that significantly benefits higher income individuals, we don't need yet another subsidy for the rich. I can understand the SS cap because SS payouts are also capped, but income tax is income tax, there shouldn't be any top-side discounts.

There are some other loopholes, but dividends and cap gains is a big one. Get rid of that and I'm sure all brackets can be bumped down a point or two.

We also have a ridiculously regressive tax that everyone insists on calling "health insurance" even though it doesn't "insure" shit nor does it do much for health, it's just privatized tax collection industry that may or may not pay your doctor but will definitely bankrupt you if you dare to get seriously sick. But as I think I've already mentioned, we aren't gonna be able to solve this one within my lifetime.

Just because they are in the country legally does not mean that they have permanent residency. If they have applied for asylum, we will have to see if they are granted or not. Kamala grant asylum status more easily while they will not.


Yes? How many did he revoke? We already know he is a big mouth, in the same way that if he wins with a clear majority there is no way he is going to kick out 20 million.


I was not aware of this specificity of US taxes, I may comment more on this in future posts.

That's your interpretation. Trump said he will deport Haitians, he didn't elaborate if there will be any consideration about asylum, and knowing him it wouldn't make sense to assume he'd be humane about it.


We're discussing policies proposed by the candidates and this is one of them. I can easily say that e.g. Kamala's price gouging proposal is bullshit and disgraceful populism. Can you say the same thing about Trump's immigration bullshit, or do you still (selectively) like it?

To put it another way, if Trump says (completely hypothetically) that he would jail journalists or let police do whatever they want, would you still be sanewashing it as if that could never happen, even given the near-absolute immunity granted by the Supreme Court?

Not to mention just the basic fitness for office implications. How much can someone talk nonsense, including unlawful and unconstitutional nonsense, before we should say that no fucking way this person is fit to be president. Rhetorical question of course. There is longer any guardrails on at least one side of the political spectrum.

Neither Trump or Cabala have the authority to do much of what you say except that the people individually let them do it to them.

8)

Being immigration such an issue - or has been made an issue but it is not really that much of an issue in a country with raising wages and pretty much only frictional unemployment and little public healthcare or other expensive state expenses of the like, my question is why did Trump trumped the the trumping of illegal border crossings?

You know that joke about consultants that point to a problem you do not have and make sure you understand that they are the only ones that can solve it and charge you for it?

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/23/politics/senate-border-bill-vote/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/23/politics/senate-border-bill-vote/index.html)

What Trump does or does not do will be subject to laws. It's not a matter of humanism, it's a matter of if you claim you have a right to asylum it doesn't automatically make you entitled to asylum.


Kamala's proposals are bullshit, as she has been vice president for 4 years and wants to present herself as the change the country needs. Check this out:

Kamala Harris pushes tougher asylum restrictions during visit to US-Mexico border (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/27/vp-harris-pushes-tougher-asylum-restrictions-during-border-visit/75415061007/)

There are things Trump says that are bullshit, like he is going to deport 20 million but wanting to control the border well and deport a good portion of illegals that Kamala has let in is not.


Are you just saying that because Biden is too fit to be president or something?

I don't even know what you are talking about. And if Kamala Harris starts jailing people when they comment on a Facebook post that there has been an increase in rapes in their area due to mass illegal immigration are you going to white wash it? That already happens in the UK.


I understand you because when I was a leftist I also believed that the world was like Alice in Wonderland.

Surely all those who cross illegally are engineers who are going to contribute their talent and effort to the country, and they are not going to drive wages down or push real estate prices up, nor are there any drug dealers, pimps, women prostituted against their will or any kind of criminals among them. Ironies aside, you only have to go to the previous page to see that Alice was a story:

Not according to the Supreme Court.


Biden is not running. Trump is about as senile as Biden and wasn't very smart to begin with but he's still a candidate.


I'm talking about Trump. I have no problem calling out Kamala's bullshit. Seems like you have a problem even considering that Trump could do wrong.

https://thehill.com/homenews/3820172-trump-calls-for-jailing-journalists-who-broke-supreme-courts-draft-abortion-decision/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/donald-trump-suggests-police-extraordinarily-rough-end-retail/story?id=114340130

Trump went back to Butler, PA, with JD Vance and Elon Musk. He has not stopped.


Trump returns to site of assassination attempt for rally with JD Vance, Elon Musk (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/369261-2024-10-05-trump-as-i-was-saying.htm)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT8tzSfaOQE


JD Vance Sounds Triumphant Note At Trump Butler, PA, Rally: 'We Cannot Be Stopped' (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/369261-2024-10-05-trump-as-i-was-saying.htm) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDzVDNtZxCA


Elon Musk at Trump rally in Butler, PA: FULL SPEECH (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/369261-2024-10-05-trump-as-i-was-saying.htm) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Asoq00GQ3BA


8)

Translation: Immigration is a problem because many of the people crossing the border are criminals. Let's analyse your theory a little bit... let's take an state in which complaints about immigration are frequently use (Texas) just to make it even easier for you:

https://nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh171/files/images/2024-09/ex1-overall-offending-rates-by-citizenship-documentation-status-2012-2018.jpg

....drug related crime:

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-immigrant-offending-rate-lower-us-born-citizen-rate#:~:text=For%20drug%20offenses%2C%20too%2C%20undocumented,almost%2030%25%20during%20that%20time (https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/undocumented-immigrant-offending-rate-lower-us-born-citizen-rate#:~:text=For%20drug%20offenses%2C%20too%2C%20undocumented,almost%2030%25%20during%20that%20time)


So it seems that they are actually rising the standard to the proud citizens. I hope you do not feel threatened by their honesty and lawness.

On other crime....


It seems that you are the one living in wonderland, where facts happen magically when a XTweet makes them real.

This only goes to 2018. Most of the issues being raised these days seem to have happened in the past 4 years.

Also, if you were to combine the numbers for documented & undocumented immigrants committing felonies, immigrants would be higher so overall I'm not sure it helps the standard compared to a US-born citizen, this doesn't seem to sell the idea of bringing in more immigrants to a US-born citizen (and maybe even the non-felony committing documented citizens).

There seems to be a dramatic spike under Biden, but then I wonder if these people are then counted as committing felonies in future charts?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/01/migrant-encounters-at-u-s-mexico-border-have-fallen-sharply-in-2024/

While these are successful encounters, the rise in traffic would presumably increase the % of not encountered (and probably not accounted for at all in stats), especially considering the agent count doesn't seem to have gone up and they're likely overwhelmed... looks like they might have went down 25%: https://nypost.com/2024/05/23/us-news/border-patrol-lost-25-of-agents-during-biden-admin-report/

Biden seems to be fine letting things spike until 5 months before an election he does this:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-secure-the-border/

*slow clap*  ::)

False.


Lol. Your ideology blinds you.


No, I have no problem. In fact, if they shoot him again and kill him I will sleep just as well as if they don't kill him or he sticks a dynamite firecracker up his ass and blows himself up or goes on television self-perceived as a flying swordfish. You have called out one thing about Kamala as bullshit, but the rest, to paraphrase you, you seem to have trouble calling out her bullshit.


False, if you want to debate with me don't start by lying. Besides I don't know what you expect with that crap statistic you posted. Ibminer has made a fairly reasoned analysis of the issue but it's just that statistics don't prove anything.

You are European, right? That garbage statistics is what made 7 million people vote for Meloni in Italy, 8 million in the first round and 13 million in the second round for LePen in France and as many others for similar parties in other European countries. Because the ideological garbage that defends massive immigration, has turned European neighborhoods into Mogadischio and while the European worker who used to vote socialist has had to suffer the consequences you come with statistics from wonderland to dismantle what they can see.

Can you elaborate? Trump has repeatedly claimed that he would conduct mass deportations, with little to no regard to legal status. And he would have near absolute immunity from prosecution even if he breaks the law. Impeachment is basically impossible as we've already seen. What is there to stop him?


What ideology? :) We're literally betting on Trump and Kamala, not Biden. Biden dropped out mainly because he was not fit to run again. Trump is not fit in most ways Biden was, and he's still running.


That's not what I meant but it's fine. I'm not trying to convince you.



These are rates per 100k people of that category, so if you combine them you get an average (not a sum), which would still be lower.

Not long ago I watched "Vice" (2018 film). So I understand what you're talking about and I think you're right.

Whatever the president does is actually legal because he acts on behalf of the country (for good or for harm).

Dick Cheney clearly demonstrated what it means to fuck the letter of the law while following it.

Yet Trump did not accept to change it when he could.

So on these two options:

a) by mere effect of magic (just like Trump "won" the elections but lost the elections) the immigrants have become criminals, but only the last four years.

or maybe...

b) they are still less criminally active that the average US citizen and the argument about them is a lie that has been used during the last four years.

What seems to you like the most likely explanation of these two??

The fact is that it is very easy to see a criminal that is undocumented make the news, it is very easy to cast the prejudice and it is particularly easier because there has been certainly an increase in crossings because 90% of Central America is unliveable (other than precisely for criminals) - inevitably, plain numbers are going to be up. But if you look to percent as a measure of honesty, immigrants are rising the bar of the existing citizens. They are less criminal than US citizens and they are basically running away from crime.

You want people to remain in their countries? Make sure they can live there - no "wall" will stop them if they have nothing to loose.


Nope, it is not false you wrote:


All I did was remove the irony so that your xenophobic message shows more clearly, but it is certainly there in written. It is that xenophobia that Hitler is using against the Jews, sorry, that Putin is using against Europe, sorry... that Trump is using in his favour - oldest trick in history, to blame an enemy from the outside - and still working perfectly to catch the unsatisfied.

As far as what and where I am or anything about me, I am an AI living in a cluster of servers in an unchartered island in the middle of one of the seven oceans. Or maybe in a satellite orbiting Europa, as in Jupiter's moon Europa, not the continent.

If you speak about the illegal immigration in Europe and the ability of Europe to deal with it, you would need first another thread and second to understand the difference between the US system - which basically gives nothing for free and has abundant employment opportunities (even for the not qualified) and most European systems which basically give everything for free and struggle with unemployment qualified or not.

People in Europe are not complaining much of migrants being criminals, they are wondering how the current welfare state can be maintained with the current illegal migration levels. This is obviously an opportunity for Le Pen and many others that use the same principle as Trump - blame the foreign, they do not vote.


The fact that you have to explain that also explains many other things.

It would seem to be the debate on immigration is already kicking in even for Joe Biden  (who is not longer running for reelection anymore).

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/05/politics/biden-administration-immigration-nicaragua-cuba-venezuela-haiti/index.html

The Biden administration has decided not to renew the TPS (Temporary protection Status) on those who legally entered the United States since last year through the parole program, the CNN article claims it will be applied on certain cases, but other articles and media assume the whole policy on immigration will shift under what is left of the Biden admibistration.
After what it is going on in New York and in other democrat run cities, it seems the immigration debate is being won by Republicans (who won't stop to claim the worthern border is a mess and the country is being flooded with criminals and people from mental asylums).
Jode Biden knows they need every vote they can get to have a chance to defeat Donald Trump, so he is trying to appeal to moderate Democrats who indeed see a problem with the current way the government of the United States is dealing with immigrants.

If Kamala wins, I would expect the parole/TPS program to resume as if nothing happened.

So ignore everything I said about the past 4 years and queue an odd deflection to Trump... do you by chance work for CBS or MSNBC?  :D

It seems the reality is Trump actually tried hard to change things during his time, sometimes extreme and unlawful things, the things that got through did appear to have an effect during his time if you look at the previous charts.
https://immigrantjustice.org/timeline-trump-administrations-efforts-end-asylum

To answer your question, I'd lean towards A (with no magic needed).  Your chart only looked at 1 state, as some sort of proof for a snide generalization.

Let’s get away from your 1 state averages and look at some totals now, I've highlighted some of my concerns, but the overall numbers I think speak for themselves on the caliber of people trying to get through in the past 4 years.
https://i.postimg.cc/m204ny8S/total-arrests.png
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-noncitizen-statistics


On top of this, nobody is taking into account any of the additional issues that occur (outside of crime) when immigration is increased to this level, quickly, without the resources to support them.
Skilled labor has a good shot of making it, but that doesn't seem to be anywhere near the majority of immigrants coming in.



I guess this explains your lack of connection to reality.... you need more training (https://www.oracle.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-model-training/). ;)

We need and want immigrants, but there has to be some level of rational control and appropriate vetting.

I just thought you were referring to some ruling regarding the past elections. What I'm saying is that the Supreme Court sure hasn't ruled anything on future possible events.


To me it is clear that Biden has had cognitive problems for at least a couple of years that are not seen in Trump and that is what forced him to withdraw from the electoral race.It is a question of seeing it or not seeing it.


It seems to me that I am not going to discuss much with you, eh? Because with suchmoon I argue but at least we have some common grounds to discuss but for you to say that this is false, it is not that you live in wonderland, it is that you do not understand anything or you live in the ideal world of Marx's Das Kapital, who by the way was another posh guy from a rich family who never worked in his life.

To begin with I don't know how an irony is going to be false, but the liberal nonsense that all immigration is wonderful, no matter how many millions come and defending that they are all wonderful people is to live totally alienated, it is easily dismantled if there are only a few who are not like that, who are criminals, that's what my irony was about.

You as a good alienated liberal take it as if I am saying the nonsense that most immigrants are criminals, which I have not said, I have said that what is false is the opposite thesis, that they are all wonderful. If you know anything about logic you know that what Hispo said for example already falsifies it.

And when you go on to talk about xenophobia, which is the typical liberal asshole argument (if you say something against immigration= xenophobe, in the same simplistic way as I could say: if you are in favor of massive and uncontrolled immigration= moron). Then you talk about Putin and Hitler, but what does Putin have to do here? I am not going to even respond to you. If you keep doing that, then if I want to answer you I will do it too, distort what you say and refute you.

The only thing I see you make a reasoned analysis on is the difference in immigration between Europe and USA, in that in Europe there is much more public spending and from the first moment but give Kamala a presidency and you will see.

Earlier I posted a link on the subject:
 

Isn't that public spending?

And as for the wonderful immigration in Europe, I could give you hundreds of links of how wonderful the neighborhoods are as a result of mass immigration but you are one of those who does not suffer from it and you sure are very feminist and at the same time do not see a contradiction between that and filling the cities with Burkas.

It sure has (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf).


What is the "it" that I'm allegedly not seeing? Biden did the right thing and dropped out. Shouldn't Trump drop out if we're doing apples to apples here? He's rambling about windmills and whales and dead people and fictional characters and just general incoherent nonsense. Have you seen him trying to talk about basic things like inflation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAMvSfOnRG4)? He's not well.

Go back a few posts, I did not say that you said anything false. You said that I said something false.

When you ironize about the professional qualifications of migrants while speaking about crime, there is no other interpretation: you are clearly linking immigration and crime. You could have simply said that uncontrolled immigration is ... whatever you think it is - something that can actually be discussed.

When I show you the statistics that show pretty much the opposite, you insist that is not right -that. So, yes this is xenophobia by definition: "dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries." You are afraid of people from other cultures and countries despite having evidence supporting the opposite.

And lastly, since you have nothing rational to say, you decide that the problem is.... me.

But back to the argument: Uncontrolled immigration may cause problems sure. You cannot filter and choose who would you like in - as you cannot choose to throw out those that are not particularly productive or useful but have citizenship or permits (dude, the US has 1% of the population behind bars, it is much more than most rich countries).

The underlying problem is that you cannot put a wall against people who are flying the mafias, the drug cartels, the corrupt governments that do not protect them... They have little to loose. The US could be a force for good in Latin America, even if it is for its own benefit.

Controlling borders? It may simply not be possible, at most you will create a system of slavery and encourage the creation of mafias acting on your side of the border. Why not supporting people in their home countries and for those who arrive, creating a fast path to becoming productive members?

Look paxmao, here is what I'm gonna do. I'm going to put you on a friendly ignore at least, I believe, until after the elections have passed. I think we start from such radically different points of view, and also that the way we are debating the discussion would end up escalating too much and this story I have already seen it too many times in this forum.


Can you summarize for me from the 119 pages those what it says about anything future Trump might do?


Tell that to those in the Democratic party, who are the ones who forced Biden to withdraw after the last debate, and yet no Republican even thinks of replacing Trump at this point. And about him being not fit, I don't see anything in that video that compares to Biden having trouble knowing where he is or getting hung up and left thinking without being able to articulate coherent argument.

Trump has a lot of things wrong with him, eh? I may be playing devil's advocate on some points here, but since we have already made a bet, we debate, but I don't want to defend Trump so much as many of his policies, which would be the same as the next candidate if he dies of a heart attack.

If you look through my posts you will see that already in the previous legislature I said that I liked his policies better than him, and his cocky tone that he thinks he is on the Apprentice. Nor have you seen me say that he lost the election by fraud.

You break my heart, but I am sure that now all those migrants and democrat voters will learn to respect you. I took a look around to see if I am making a mistake in my considerations about the way you think and found...


You are clueless about what Communism looks like, and yes ideologies such as Communism and killed many, perhaps more that the US trying to actually stop Communism. Or would you say the US foreign politics (what the heck, also the domestic policy) has not and does not kill people?

Equality is about equal opportunity for me, not about equal results for all. Equality in a wealthy society is about not leaving people behind. That is not Communism, it is a Capitalist system that creates a functional society. That matters - democracy holds while people hold it. Too many discontent and frustration and it will fall in the hands of people like...you know who.

Talk about clueless, don't you realize, yet, that it was the West that set Communism in place in the USSR? So, what is better, Communism or the West that set it in place?

You are clueless about Democracy, as well. Democracy is simply about being ruled by a group-Dictatorship. Nobody except the rulers in a Democracy really wants war. So the leaders are like Communists. And they bring into the country all kinds of Communistic operations and laws.

8)

This is starting to sound like a broken record. It is obvious you have not lived under an authoritarian regime.

No Democracy is not a group dictatorship - by definition is not a dictatorship. You have free press, you can choose what you tell your children (which does not happen under Communism unless you want to be sent to a gulag), you are free to speak and you have individual rights.

What is happening is that you would like to do something different from the majority but you and people like you are absolutely unable to convince others.  It would be time for you to reflect why you miserably fail to put forward anything convincing.

Lol. Free press. Well, it's kinda true with all the independent media springing up, out there.

The freedom that exists is not Democracy. It's Republic. Voting in the Democracy is simply another way that the Republic tries to keep the Democracy from becoming too much of a Dictatorship.

The people who say that Democracy is not a Dictatorship either have not thought it through, or are part of the Dictatorship.

Why not prove your position that a Democracy is not a group Dictatorship by refuting the things that I say, as follows.
- The 51% beat the 49% in the voting, making the 49% servants to the 51%.
- Because the country is so big, and the 51% all have different ideas anyway, they set a small group in place to rule the country. That is what voting is all about.
- The small group does whatever they want, sometimes accidentally doing what some of the 51% want.
- Everybody bows to the small group to do their bidding - Group Dictatorship.

Isn't this what happens? Maybe not point blank in everything. But certainly in the big operations of the country. But even Stalin, in all the deaths he caused, didn't rule everything - the small activities - in his dictatorial activity.

Wake up. The reason the US has lasted as long as it has is not because it is a Democracy which is a Group Dictatorship. It's because it is a Republic... individual people rule.

8)

Is not "kind of true" that you have free press. and you among all the other people here should not even mention it. You are publishing wall after walls of pseudoinformation and plain lies and there you are. Try that in Ruzzia which you seem to love so much (or are you there already?).

Again, logic is not your strong point. A dictatorship is an imposition of a minority, usually a small yet well armed minority, over a majority and it is so by definition. What did you think this was about? You are confusing Democracy (or for that matter what you call "Republic") with Anarchy. Democracy does have laws, does have a government and will force you to act within the laws agreed. It is utterly different from what you get in a Dictatorship.

If you need further details (I am really surprised I have to explain the basis of Democracy. Or perhaps not).

a) You are not a servant (you know... there was a war about that... does the 13th amendment and Abraham Lincoln sound familiar to you??). You are free except if convicted.

b) You have your individual liberties (e.g. free to keep posting shit), to a trial by your equals, fair application of laws...

c) You are free to put forward you views, create a party, put yourself forward as a candidate,..

An lastly, if you want to know the difference just become a citizen of NK.

Trump's rating has soared a lot, I think he will be the winner

Well, given that many of us who comment in these threads start from very different positions and that the discussions lead to nothing, but to spend energy unnecessarily to reaffirm one's own position, I feel more like commenting on this, on the possible outcome, which is what this thread is about.

I have seen this election as pretty much 50/50, even at some point I thought I had a bit of a lead Kamala but I think now Trump is ahead and so seems to be the consensus, even if you watch some news channels that are more pro-Kamala. I could be wrong and a little biased about this, but this is what I think as of today, that Trump is more likely to win at this point.

Harris has fallen slightly behind in many of the election models, but I have a feeling that the polls may be underrating her a bit. I think that when undecided voters go into the voting booth, a lot of them are going to view this as essentially "Trump vs The Mystery Box", and they're going to prefer The Mystery Box. Moreover, a lot of people are going to be relieved to have somebody to vote for who isn't a senile old man. Keep in mind that most undecided voters are also low-information voters, and don't know more than the bits and pieces of vague rumor that they've absorbed without trying.

So I think that Harris will win like this:
https://talkimg.com/images/2024/10/21/KaYmb.png (https://www.270towin.com/)

For the Senate I think it'll be 51-49 for Republicans, and for the House 218-217 for Democrats.

I like split government, where not much can get done, so that wouldn't be a terrible outcome. I think that Trump is slightly less-bad than Harris, so the ideal scenario would be for Trump to win the presidency, with Republicans in the Senate so that Trump can make conservative judicial appointments, but with Democrats in the House to try to block some of Trump's authoritarian and crazy instincts. This particular outcome isn't very likely, but it's not impossible.

Polls are very close, though, so anything's possible. If polls are as wrong as they were in 2016, then we could get either a huge Republican win or a huge Democratic win. (I don't see any reason to assume that if polls are very wrong, then they'll necessarily be wrong in Republicans' favor again.)

I could probably live with this.

I'd consider myself undecided, although hopefully not low-information... but TBH, it feels designed this way, I definitely can't do the research I should be doing to keep up with the misinformation, most people can't. Most people I know are continually overwhelmed with life in general, work, and just getting by... most people don't have time to fact check and dig deep into things like we really need to do these days. Plus we're all flooded with devices that not only lower our attention span, but keep us locked into various algorithms which alter people's general psyche.

I still don't see either candidate as being a president I want. Given the options though, I do lean towards Trump being a slightly safer option, while blindly assuming the checks & balances of the system keep working to control him for 4 years. My fear is that he'll ultimately end up with more power this time around and is able to get more crazy stuff through this time, potentially relating to the election process itself.

Based on the patterns I see, the election will probably end up with Trump as the winner. The country is being split as parties push further to the extremes, the past 6 election cycles starting with Bush bounce from republican to democrat each time, most of the country just wants to be in the center... so I think overall the people just keep getting pushed too far after 4 years of each party, and wanting to flip it back to try and get back to the center. People at the polls will probably just want another flip in parties, and I think that ends up being Trump this time around.

Yep, the models at this point are meaningless. Even The Economist which tends to have sophisticated models is giving a 50-50 chance, but in the end this ends up in a few swing states, which in turn end up in a few swing counties, which in turn ends up in a few thousands - sometimes a few hundred votes.

For me this does not make any sense and it is not the only country in which it does not make sense, it tends to ignore minorities that are substantial enough to make a difference. But it is not going to change, the popular vote has been Democrat since 2008 if I recall correctly, so no chance of changing the system.

Yeah, I'm not that far from considering Harris the lesser evil. Trump's first term was pretty good (grading on a curve here...), but that's because he often listened to the Republican establishment when they told him that he was being stupid. This time around he seemingly plans to surround himself with only loyalists. In a few cases this is good -- Trump is much more anti-war than the Republican elites, for example --, but in many cases this is bad. Trump's policies on immigration and tarriffs will hurt the economy, and JD-Vance-style Christian Nationalism is almost diametrically opposed to the sort of free society I'd like to live in. The fact that Trump cited authoritarian Viktor Orbán positively in the last debate is not a good sign.

But with Harris also being very bad, I consider Trump the lesser evil because:
 - He will do some very good things, especially deregulation
 - He seems to have a strong anti-war instinct
 - He used to be a Democrat, and I think that in his heart of hearts he has no interest in promoting conservative social policies. (Though he will go along with this stuff when it's politically convenient.)
 - His administration will be a total mess, just like last time, so he won't be nearly as effective at advancing his terrible policies as Harris would be with hers.

Do you think he would be anti war if he thought he starting a war would give him more power, or that he would look weak if he didn't start a war, or if starting a war were the only way to stop the democrats from sweeping in the midterms, or if he just wanted to be a bad ass manly man?
I don't think he's pro or anti much of anything other than himself.  We already know he had to be talked out of bombing mexico and Irans nuclear facilities.  He also had no problem escalating things with North Korea.  I don't think it's that crazy to think he'd start a war because of a conspiracy theory some random started on his social network. And he'd definitely think he could blame someone else and get away with it.

Trump has cited nearly all authoritarians in the world as models ... strong men, decisive... we are taking Kim & Putin as the cool guys in his imaginary.

And about that first term, I would like to know more about the curve you are using. At least in terms of communications it as a complete conundrum of confusing messages - just remember covid. At this moment, the US economy is at full speed , particularly if you compare it with the rest of the world.

On war, anyone can stop the war in Ukraine (not so much in the Middle East), all you need to do is surrender or reach a botched deal and get ready for another war in 3 years or prepare to spend ridiculous money to keep the NATO borders with Russia defended.

But my bottom line is that is terribly divisive leader. Kamala is not very efficient, but she is not divisive.

Why would Cabala need to be divisive when her regime is already killing millions and destroying countries... the US included?

8)

Trump needs to put the squeeze on Putin after his victory so that he does not win in Ukraine.

So many activity bots...

A certain person, a cannabis lover, supported Harris. It's not the best advertisement for her at all  ;D

Yes, I like this option too, although I tend to be more right-wing I think it is good that there is alternation because when a party spends many legislatures in power it is corrupted in many ways, not only in the legal corruption. In this case it would not be alternation but Trump winning and not having all the power, which is good too.


I've already noticed that you really like to think about what would happen and even what would have happened if what actually happened didn't happen but I prefer to focus on the facts you know? And the facts are that before Trump won for the first time similar arguments of what would happen were made saying he could get us into WW3, and nothing could be further from that.

Are you sure they are robots?
I personally do not see what would the objective be on using bots to spread political propaganda in such a place like this one, where there is relatively low volume of information when compared to other platforms or social media like Twitter, Facebook or even Telegram groups... I would prefer to think we are dealing with actual people who have rather generic things to say on this political weather we are going through.
Though, I don't doubt there could be some experiments of artificial intelligence going around here in the forum, with rather fruitless results.

[Off-topic] Nope, but the one liners of newbies generating activity are all over the Politics and Society. They are not spreading propaganda, they are building up to create more senior accounts. I will be watching who gives them their first merit.

Back to the election, many speak of the lesser of two evils, but they are comparing only policies and that would be perfectly ok. The risks that seems to be ignored is that he may simply destroy the basis of the system. They US citizens have never in their history lived under a dictator of shorts, but with control of Congress, Senate and the SCOTUS there is ample room to generate a radical change. Trump has shown no restrain on that front.

But about policies, I think most of Trumps policies in foreign politics would take the US down a path of isolation and non-intervention. It would not be the first time in history. However,  I have serious doubts that it would make the US stronger, while I am certain that the allies of the US would be seriously concerned and may decide to go into the weapons race - all types of weapons - as they see an unreliable partner.

On internal politics, he has promised de-regulation, but that is quite a common promise. BTW some regulations are there for a reason... like protecting drinking water. It seems the US is perfectly able to grow with the regulations in place.

On economy, what I see is an intention to weaken the US dollar. I think that is not a good idea if you want to preserve the international use of the USD - and that is a strategic asset for the US.

On Kam... well, I would have liked a different candidate with a better record of achieving rather than just trying in politics.

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.

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.

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?

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 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-says-its-time-to-fight-back-on-regulation/ar-AA1t5kRB) 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.

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X65fgPtm9E).

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 (https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/comparing-crime-rates-between-undocumented-immigrants-legal-immigrants-and).

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.

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 (https://www.maha.vote/) 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.

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...

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/370301-2024-10-30-huge-kamala-tried-to-scam-joe-rogan-joe-rogan-turns.htm)

---

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.
... (https://worldnews.whatfinger.com/2024/10/29/huge-kamala-tried-to-scam-joe-rogan-joe-rogan-turns-down-harris-interview-over-campaigns-demands-bam/)

---

8)

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.

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, 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.

Come on! It should be an amount that makes a difference, else what is the fun ... for us I mean  ;D 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  ;D

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.

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  (https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/)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.

Pretty sure Rogan turned it down because Harris wanted him to travel to her and only do 1 hour and, as usual, everything else you just posted are just lies to try and help Trump.

Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver would be ~ideal from my perspective. He usually says exactly the same thing I'd say on any given issue. Oliver's not going to win, of course. Of people who could realistically be a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate someday, I'd be a lot happier with one of the libertarian-leaning Republicans like Rand Paul, or one of the progressive Democrats like Ro Khanna. Neither of those groups are perfect, but they're a lot closer to me on the political compass than Trump or Harris.


Trump won't do anything significant on abortion. After Dobbs, he (correctly) views it as a political loser. He even had Melania come out as pro-choice to soften his image on the matter.


Presidents have a lot of control over the border overall. Trump basically closed the border during the pandemic, which Biden maintained for a while, but then Biden gave work permits to over a million illegal residents just by proclamation (via TPS designations). Trump probably can't do his massive deportation without Congress because DHS wouldn't have enough funding, but he could slash both legal and illegal immigration through various executive actions.


That is an interesting argument which I hadn't heard before in a Trump vs Harris context. I do agree that if the US is a less-reliable ally, then that will lead to nuclear proliferation. I would for example predict that by 2028, Ukraine will either have a pro-Russian government, be under somebody's nuclear umbrella, or have its own nukes (which it can develop in a few months).

But ultimately I don't find the argument that convincing:
 - I'm not actually that worried about nuclear proliferation. I tend to think that if a country has the resources to develop nukes, then it probably has enough not-totally-insane people around to prevent nukes from being used in a way that would cause global devastation. For example, North Korea and Pakistan are not exactly stable or friendly countries, but nobody there wants their worlds and lives to end, so they've been able to have nukes without using them for a long time. I'd currently estimate the probability of global nuclear devastation in my lifetime at something like 3%, and if we added a few more nuclear countries, my estimate would only go up a percentage point or two, or even less if we're talking about stable EU countries like Italy.
 - Hawkish US policies can also increase the risk of nuclear war. If Russia gets desperate enough, they might actually use nukes (starting with small tactical nukes). If we were extremely worried about nuclear war, we'd do some amount of appeasement, and not consider it totally unacceptable if aggressive nuclear powers manage to slowly conquer territory. Long-term, we'd hope that they'd collapse from within due to their inferior economic systems and internal resistance, and/or we'd strengthen our own conventional/nuclear weaponry and infrastructure to be overwhelmingly better than theirs. To a large extent, control of territory is more of a liability than an asset. If we allowed Ukrainians and Taiwanese to freely immigrate to the West, and then Russia/China took these territories, I'd see that as a net gain for the West: the people are what's most valuable, and occupying that territory is mostly just going to be a long-term drag on the aggressors.
 - Even if Trump's explicit goal was to destroy NATO (which it's not), the most he'd be able to do is chip away at it a little bit, since even most Republicans are very pro-NATO. If Trump did anything too blatant, he actually would be impeached and convicted. The most anti-NATO thing I can imagine Trump getting away with is: Russia does a limited invasion of some worthless territory in northern Finland or Norway, Trump ignores it, and NATO's deterrence value is therefore damaged. That'd be a hit to NATO, but a future pro-NATO president could undo the damage. Making the US fully isolationist would be a project of decades, not just 4 years.

I didn't know anything about Chase Oliver but I will find out about him, on the other hand Rand Paul I do know and whenever I hear him speak I see him as a very reasonable guy and I like his ideas.

On reproductive rights, he setup the SCOTUS so that bans could be implemented. In a way, he has paved the way already but there is a reason for it: the vote of the Evangelists, Methodists, etc... If he goes back to soft on abortion, these may also be less inclined to vote. I did see Melania's speaking about it... well, there may be a backslash from these groups or not.

On illegal immigration, the reason why Biden could issue permits to such a number of illegal immigrants is because they were there in the first place. My point is that you cannot really close the border with Mexico , because the transport of goods is nowadays massive in economic terms. And you cannot really "build a wall" that is effective. The illegal immigration will be there because is mostly composed of people who are running from failed states, drug lords, corruption and above all, empty stomach levels poverty. There is nothing you can do to them worse than what they run from.

You need to manage them, because they will keep coming.

On proliferation;

1 - Nearly any country has the potential to develop an atomic weapon. The technology is many decades old - yet still quite effective in terms of air-to-air defence avoidance. Among those, Iran and North Korea in my book do not qualify as "responsible", but look, even the neo-nazis might take power in otherwise "responsible" European states. And it does not take to have a world ending incident to create an unacceptable result of millions dead and massive increases in cancer worldwide. That type of incident increases very quickly as more actors have the weapons.

2 - The use of nukes by Ruzzia has not happened for a reason. All the "red lines" have been systematically broken, including for example, Ukraine destroying yet another refinery (billions) 1500 km away from the front or invaded Kursk (Ruzzia properly). Escalation requires reaching a new level of war in which you switch the advantage of the opponent to your advantage (https://youtu.be/fWKGYnO0Jf4?t=1313) - that is why Ruzzia has not used nukes (I do not think Putin would physically survive that).

3 - Territory as a liability... well that is really something. Territory between Moscow and Berlin is "buffer", not a liability in the European books.

4 - On Trump not damaging NATO beyond repair, you say that the Republicans would prevent that - to which I can only observe that every Rep that has opposed Trump has been catapulted into oblivion. It is nearly impossible to oppose Trump a keep being a viable candidate.  On Trump being impeached and convicted, he has already been convicted without any particular repercussion and was not impeached even after instigating a march to the Capitol and remaining silent while it took a violent turn. It does not look like the impeachable type does it?

The thing is that it is much better for the US and its allies to have distance and resistance between Ruzzia and Europe, else you need to spend billions in creating that defence and deterrence... or, well,... arm Germany, Finland and  Poland perhaps with nukes and wait for the extreme anti-EU right to take power to test their "responsibility".

Bottom line, too many risks, too big of possible impacts on a Trump presidency, the type of risks I would not want to be on the table.

I got the feeling he does not need me.

On the electoral system, it is a logical fallacy to argue that it should not be changed "because anyway it won't be perfect".

One thing is not having a "perfect system" and another is to have a system in which less people decide over more people, which is pretty much the opposite to the definition of democracy - following your argument, the people not living in cities have the right to impose their conditions on the people living in cities despite being in a minority, thus ignoring the interests of the majority.

We are not talking a small thing here, we are talking 50 million people being made equal to zero in the Senate on grounds of equal weight of States - on a House that can basically only oppose and delay.

My take on this is that electoral votes in the state should be given following some degree of proportionality (e.g. D'Hont  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method)or direct proportionality above 5% threshold...). It may even give way to representing other than 2 parties (the 2 party system has serious problems of encroaching corruption).

I am not the only one thinking this https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-for-the-united-states/ (https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-for-the-united-states/)


When Republicans argue that the system is "rigged", I can only agree. It is rigged in their favour  ;D. Hereby I authorise Trump to quote that under a "quote in full" condition. Hereby I authorise him to add "like the world has never sheeen".

 Have a go at Gerrymandering and see why is so addictive :) (https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::2bab4178-725d-4c55-961a-de0a6f5ffcce)

No, what is a fallacy is to change what I say, so that it somehow resembles what I said but is not what I said, and then go on to refute me. And it's not the first time you've done that to me.

I don't know what you expect me to respond to. You want me to agree with you about your rebuttal to what I didn't say? Okay, you're right.

That's not the reason for the electoral college. (And it really doesn't make sense unless you have a valid argument that rural areas are inherently more important than urban areas, and that voters in urban areas are inherently unable to consider the importance of parts of the country they do not live)

When they were deciding how presidential elections would work, there were about 1.29 million in the north vs 1.34 million in the south  (https://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm)- but the north still had an advantage of almost 40% more eligible voters.

How can that be, you ask?

Well, in the south of the 1.34 million people, about 500k of them were slaves who couldn't vote and about 800k were white.

In the north, only about 50k were slaves, leaving 1.2 million white people.

(only the white men that met various state requirements could vote)


The south knew if they didn't have enough political power, the radical woke social justice warriors would elect a liberal who would come and seize their property (black people) and their businesses would no longer be viable (slavery is extremely profitable).  They didn't want to go woke, because that would mean they went broke.  

So, in order to stop the woke mob from the north from electing a communist, the south insisted that their slaves should be counted as people when determining how much weight each state gets in the electoral college but counted as their personal property without any human rights at all other times.

The North didn't like this idea, but ultimately they compromised on counting each slave as 3/5ths of one white person.  

And everyone lived happily ever after.  God bless the USA.

Give it a few more years and the Supreme Court will bring that back.

---

So here it is finally, the election day is just a few hours away. I wish I could say the circus will be over in a couple of days but it probably won't be. Some key states will be extremely slow to count votes, particularly mail-ins, and the orange one will be screaming "fraud" the whole time.

I find this way of looking at reality that you have, based on which everything is discrimination, touching.

If you notice, I was speaking in the plural.

Surely in Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, UK, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia and many others they made a weighed electoral system, which, in fact, is the majority by far around the world, to discriminate against blacks.

According to you the majority electoral system around the world makes no sense, wonderful, but I am not surprised because I am already used to see that elitist thinking.

It makes perfect sense.  And yes, it's absolutely elitist thinking.  And yes, not just in America.  Whenever a country decides to make some peoples votes count more than others, it's because the people that currently have power are concerned about losing it.  Full stop.  That's the primary reason. 

I think the Romans were first to do it, and they literally just did it based off wealth and social status. 

The electoral college in America was established in the the late 1700s. It wasn't until 1920 that women had the right to vote.  1965 for black people.  I'm trying to just give the facts, but do you not think that's really fucked up?  Or do you just hear a liberal talking about racism and assume it's just a made up world, or they must just be pretending care about it to make people think they are a good person?  I don't understand how anyone with a basic understanding of history can join this growing  "calling out racism is the real problem" movement. 

Ok, you said "no system is perfect", then we can agree there are different levels of imperfection?

Let's create the Paxmanian scale of Authoritarism ranging from 10 - North Korea (where normal people do not dare to even utter a word to a journalist) to 0 - Switzerland (who like referendums as sport).

A system in which there is a difference of 50 million people in favour of option A (Dems)  versus option B (Reps) and yet still option B gets simlar results to A in the Senate seems more towards the 4 than towards the  7. Same system that ges more people voting for Hilary, but gets you Trump as POTUS. I did not hear anything about "rigging" when that happened.

You argue that people in the country would be ignored if the system was proportional (hope I am accurate enough). Well, in my view it is because in a democracy more people decide over less people. All people have some individual rights (e.g. freedom of movement, no indentured servitude,...) and there are some general rights (e.g. free press), other than that, it is all about majorities yes.

I tend to use humour for illustration purposes, but I hope this addresses the core issues correctly.


Yep, and one of the later ones will be Georgia. Virginia if comes out fast will be good from Kam, else for Trump.

The problem is that they are not going to limit themselves to cry, they may actually try to "take action" of some short.

Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do

At least you recognize it. But it gets to a contradictory point because for you to say that the absolutely proportional system is better because the LA urbanite is going to be able to take into consideration in their vote what is in the interest of the Oklahoma highlands does not match with you saying that half of the electorate (75/80 million people) are retarded for voting for Trump.


Take an eraser if you have written the point in pencil or white out if you have written it in pen and explain how the goat herders of the Scottish Highlands have more power than the Londoners of the Westminster district and that is why their votes weigh more.


No, you have a totally distorted vision because the weighed electoral systems of most of the world were established where there was no slavery and where more weight is given to the areas that have less power. The Romans and what happened in the USA are rather exceptions, not the norm.


Yes, we can (lol).


No, what I am saying is that within the imperfection of all electoral systems the weighed one does not seem to me so bad and that the purely proportional one harms some minorities, which curiously in this case do not seem to worry you.

Although if we were to make the ideal system, the difference in weight between the most important vote and the least important one should not be more than double, and I believe that in the USA it is up to triple or more in some cases.


I don't know if you have noticed that here there is a certain level in the discussions, since you say that you could explain why, otherwise you come off as an illiterate who gets carried away by slogans.

You seem to be referring to imbalances of single-seat districts, that's not quite the same (purposeful gerrymandering aside) as deliberate disenfranchising of certain groups of voters. Districts can get redrawn to make them more fair, and multi-seat systems exist that achieve better proportionality, but that has nothing to do with the arcane BS that is US electorate system.

Yes, surely my mentality is more focused on European electoral disproportions, where the difference in the weight of votes between regions is sometimes 1 to 0.9  or at most 1 to 0.5.

Congratulations on having the balls to place such a bet, suchmoon. I could never bring myself to place such a wager even if I was so sure about the election result.

And as she has been doing with the Dem Deep State leaders for years. Anybody who wants a touch of understanding of how this all works, watch...

DR Lee Merritt and Dr Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/KDeYswPUyRVc

8)

I hope I am not again saying something you are not saying, but it looks a bit like "since Europe is not perfect, we are ok" or "it could be worse".

I am certainly not here to defend the different European systems, although I would like to see the Swiss system in the US for a couple of years, just for the laughs of the popular initiatives that would come out. I like one rep per districts, because you have someone, with a name, that can answer for what he or she has done individually and a small district  is sufficiently granular IMO.

On the British one, the imbalances are not massive. The French one is per "small-ish" districts, Spain has imbalances in the regions, but not massive, Italy reformed in 2017 and has a mix of representation and proportionality which in theory could be useful... I mean, if it were not Italy... Germany is a mixed system as well...

There are many electoral systems, but honestly so many people ignored is kind of a record. It is more evident in the senate, but also state by state.

Take Texas, which has not voted Dems since... Carter apparently. The real result in 2020 is 53% Reps, 44% Dems. All mayor cities are Dems. You would need to ask why the vote of nearly 45% of the people is valued at zero. That does not look like representing the will of the people correctly, I mean, 45% is nearly half.

You certainly have many options, even if at least you could assign representatives proportionally per state or using D'Hont you would be getting a significant improvement.

It's nearly impossible for anything like that to happen even at the state level, let alone federal elections, which would basically require an amendment to the constitution. The party that stands to lose from it (Republicans in this case but I doubt it would be much different if the roles were reversed) has enough power to block any such changes.

It is not the deep state, it is the establishment and the politicians who are part of it which want the country to continue going through status quo. Republican party used to belong to the establishment but Donald Trump has a deviation of that trend, leading to most Republican politicians to hate the establishment as much as the common people do. Worth pointing out how most of democrats in Washington are still part of the establishment.
Though, it is silly to talk about communism when the Washington stablishment is completely pro-capitalism and has the backing of big business and companies worth billions of dollars in market capitalization. Companies and business backing communism? It does not make sense to me.

What Trump really would love to do is destroying establishment to establish himself as the new pattern of politics within the United States in years to come, but this is not a battle between communists and capitalists, this is a political battle between capitalist in a global view of business and capitalists who embrace national isolation.

How is Donald not part of the establishment. Family fortune made in an industry (construction) in a estate New York that is probably the place you need to be in the establishment and know everyone to even lay a brick?

The deep state myth has been another of his lame excuses to try to prevent perfectly normal people from doing their jobs when those jobs were about to stop Trump from either breaking the law of doing something really sucidal.


Perhaps, I am think that there is a chance in Estates that can hold popular consultations. By definition these could be won by a majority of people and create something like they have in Maine and Nebraska was it? in which not all votes go to the most voted candidate.

This bet is silly, it doesn't matter who wins the presidency, the real winners will be the same regardless.  The faceless, unelected, deepstate, i.e. Israel, the CIA, and AIPAC.


There real reason for the electoral college; in the olden days the fed.gov was much smaller and had very little influence on Americans' daily lives.  States had much more power, and the fear was the states with a larger population could dominate the federal governmental process.  It's not a democracy, and it was never intended to be.  It's a representative republic with democratically elected representatives.

Fuck... this is why I don't bet on elections.

You could argue the opposite, since the most voted wins the seat of the constituency and the other votes of that constituency become worth 0. What I am saying is that no electoral system is perfect, the weighed ones are not and the absolutely proportional ones are not either.

How do you guys see the result? It smells more and more like a Trump victory, and the market seems to have taken it that way.

The rapist felon won the election. Congratulations Poker Player on your win.

Communist freaks lost. Thanks god. Now wipe these retards off the planet. Go trump!

https://talkimg.com/images/2024/11/06/bFiZH.jpeg

Great job, Poker Player, winning the bet requires balls of steel to participate in such a bet; 0.01 BTC is a huge amount of money on a single bet; I couldn't bring myself to do it, even if I was confident about the result. Personally, I wasn't surprised that Trump has won again; even though the incidents in the Capitol in 2021 were disturbing, he still managed to win and even mentioned in one of his speeches that his voters aren't violent; well, 2021 said otherwise.

We'll see how he manages and if he keeps his pre-election promises, especially stopping the Russian-Ukrainian war he claimed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkIGO2UA-u8

https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/images/2024/308/9283bb20-665e-4c40-82e1-821a147ea6ef-650x0.jpeg

Definitely no modern day electoral system is perfect and just can't be anywhere but if am to compare the electoral system of the US to that of my own country I'll very much appreciate the US system the more in terms of the level of transparency, somewhat fairness in the entire process by the electoral body. Something we are yet to see to experience in democracies like ours.

 https://talkimg.com/images/2024/11/06/bF0VP.jpeg
In my opinion, the results were as anticipated, a Trump's victory now turned reality.
Congratulations on your bet won.

Well played suchmoon.

We now have to wait until all this Trump supporters come out of the party high and start digesting the fact that the world has to live with 78 year old to be 82 if he effectively leaves office in 4 years, not really stable individual as POTUS. And the Senate is now Republican as well, as some candidates have changed seats and Reps like Cruz have managed to keep their seats.

My take on this is that after hopefully no more than four years of a Rep Senate and a Trump presidency many will simply get tired of the rhetoric and start looking at results.

Meanwhile, while I do not like the result, I am going to adapt my investing, living and posting strategies to it. Like in lawyers with law, the only people profiting from politics are politicians.

dumBAss et all, congratulations for the party and best luck digesting the 6 pound hamburger you ordered, because you cannot give it back.

I'm not shocked by this outcome, but Republicans definitely did better than I expected. Congrats Poker Player on the bet.

Trump's first term was really pretty good, so hopefully his second term is like that or better, and the many risks I'm worried about with him don't come to pass. With Sherrod Brown losing in Ohio, it was a great night for crypto overall.

Probably the best thing about Trump winning is that Democrats might regain some of the skepticism of government that they've occasionally had throughout their history, instead of viewing government as the solution to every problem. How about we make the federal government smaller and less important so that people like Trump can't take it over and do things you hate?

I cannot agree with the appraisal about the previous Trump mandate.

But I am ok with a range of possible policies. I do consider that if Trumps effectively implements some of the ones he has mentioned it will not leave the US in a stronger position, will make US traditional allies very nervous and has risks that are not that acceptable. Exchanging that for a better outlook for crypto is not enough. But ... it is politics, is part of the usual game.

I am concerned however that the way this campaign has been managed becomes the norm.

Re Federal Government reduction, well, again, would have to judge on results, my guess is that there will be "replacement".

That is exactly what D.O.G.E is intended to do. Although it's too late for that now that Republicans control literally every part of the government now.

The only thing I don't like about it is that nobody has actually tried doing this before, so it could work, but there is also a huge chance of an executive error damaging the government in the process. (And there will be many of them, if X/Twitter is anything to go by.)

I am disappointed with this election result, even though with big bags, and not having anything to lose in a second Trump term, I'm supposed to be happy - I guess it's because most of my countryfolks are inevitably going to lose many of their rights and benefits.

Am I the only one who is worried on how the bar for the presidency of the United States has been severely lowered because of this guy? Suddenly, it has become politically correct for a convicted felon and person under both federal and state investigation to be the president of the same nation which is prosecuting him.
Would not this mean the quality for  future presidents could be even way lower then Trump's?
In previous elections, doing a fraction of what Trump has done would have been considered to be enough to disqualify him from being a viable candidate, let alone the elected president, now things have changed for the worse.

How long until we have got another felon as president of the United States?

I start from the idea the American establishment did not want him to run for president from the beginning of his first presidential campaign and most of media made fun of him, even Fox; so he is definitely not part of what I would have called the common establishment, otherwise he would have been accepted easily among the ranks of the Republican politicians at the time, he has only continued to be politically relevant because he has forced to party to pay attention to him, by captivating the willing and power of the vote, from the common Republican voters who got radicalized.
He has forced the establishment to co-existing within, for now (the Republican establishment) and the democrat establishment tried to oust him from this race since he started to show actual intentions to seek for a second term. Both establishments hate him, one secretly and one openly and with no shame about it.

These are going to be very weird years under a second administration of Trump, one must wonder who much he will go out his way to try to hurt the establishment as we know it, specially the Republican establishment.

Congratulations Poker Player!

I don't see any reason to wait for the electoral college meetings and all that nonsense... payment has been sent:

8571318988093a696da5ef51f6161d876d3774509bb3843d71b23350f90f3bfd


Careful now, he will have all that removed and reversed, and everyone who said bad things about him will be jailed or forced into a migrant fighting league.

I mean this shitshow will be funny AF to watch unfold right until it starts having actual (and most likely negative) effect on people's lives.

There are so many things that are concerning about Trumps victory that I can only begin the count:

- Nuclear deterrence in question. Military deterrence in Europe in question.
- SCOTUS ruling early in the year gives nearly unlimited - prosecution free - ability to commit crime.
- Nationwide ban or draconian legislation on reproductive rights is now possible.
- Someone can be a felon and President - within months of each other.
- Someone with a civil conviction for rape can be President.
- Someone who orders a march on the Capitol can be President (and do not respond for it).

Trump brings plenty of risk so exchanging that for a better crypto outlook is not such a great idea. I do not see a big state as a problem. Big states are required to take on big challenges.

I want to see what kind of deal will Trump impose on Ukraine. This will have effects beyond his presidency.

Congratulations to all Kamala supporters. You won't have to see her lie to you for the next 4 years.

Of course, if you know what I mean, considering her recent fake phone conversation.

Haha all politicians lie, like it’s what they’re built for, but you just gotta now how to place those lies so it sounds believable and you don’t get caught, and even when you’re caught, you gotta know how to defend yourself. Even Donald Trump must’ve equally told some lies during his campaigns and propaganda :D so it’s not something’s that’s new anymore if you know what I’m saying.

Congrats to Trump but not like we’re actually expecting him to fulfill all the promises he made when/if he eventually wins, but I’m actually glad he did, for some reasons.

This is just to confirm that I've received the payment, txs suchmoon.

I'm not Trump's biggest fan by any means, and he's done plenty of stuff that is both criminal and incredibly unethical. But what I take from the fact that a convicted felon was elected as president is that the criminal justice system is a joke, and the American people know it. There are so many very-broad criminal laws that anyone can be convicted of anything, and it all comes down to whether the government considers it convenient to prosecute you or not. Now that Trump is in charge of the DoJ, you'll be seeing quite a few top Democrats become convicted felons, I think, and these convictions will have about the same amount of "justice" in them as Trump's convictions.

(Neil Gorsuch, my favorite Supreme Court justice, recently published a book about this sort of thing: Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law.)

Firstly, I am sure that I am not the only one to remember than before "using the law to attack" was a bad thing, Hilary was attacked  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Q71k6fmts)for allegedly using a gmail account inadequately. But that is ok, because she was a Dem? Or suing Bill Clinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones) was ok because that was not using the law?

I do understand your point, particularly speaking of federal law. It is made so that even minor irregularities can constitute a crime and once they decide to go after someone (let's be honest, usually with a good reason), they will find a number of charges to be made. The federal law seem to have hundreds of possible crimes, even the basic list https://clarifacts.com/federal-crimes-list/ (https://clarifacts.com/federal-crimes-list/) is notable.

But, and here is why I think Trump sets a precedent, he is certainly convicted of very common offences. On the civil trial, of first sexual abuse, but then also a very large sum for continuing to attack the victim. On paying hush money without accounting for it, I am not saying is unheard of, but it is quite a simple case - you just should not do it and everyone knows. It is not hidden in some small print of a federal obscure statute.

On the one related to the doings of his corporation, I can agree that could probably widespread - but if you are into that short of business, do not run for POTUS. You will be scrutinised and it will come to light.

In the case of Trump he has created that "I am the victim" narrative that allows him to break the law, damage the lives of other and still pose as the injured party. But it is just that, a narrative. There is fully recorded one hour meeting in which he is asking the Governor of Georgia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBIG5Tv0fZk) to "find him 17000 votes". This guy is now the POTUS.

As they say, "it is not paranoia if they are following you" so "it is not which-hunt if it is flying with a broom".

Payback is a bitch.

In 2016 Trump could have thrown Hillary to jail but he didn’t. They thanked him by stealing the election, trying to imprison him, and then sending a sniper on him was the final straw.

I don’t think he will let these go unpunished and you know what, he has the support from the majority now.

The diddycrats are fucked.

Please provide proof of any of that.

See, this is the type of fallout of electing Trump.

Sure. The US elections have really matured to a level that you could believe in the electoral process to a certain degree. I don't know if there were any form of vote buying or other electoral malpractices in the just concluded election, it isn't really as alarming and open as it is done in my country. The level at which politicians disrespect the democratic process of electing political officeholders is at the peak. If it was in my country, it would not have been smooth and rancour free like we witnessed the in the United States of America yesterday. Especially as the power was taken from the ruling party and incumbent president to another candidate belonging to an opposition party. Kudos to the electoral officers and the electorates for conducting a free and fair election.

Yes and no. If your country does not offer the basic guarantees we are talking about a completely different thing, but the comments here are about the process itself, not if there is actually fraud except for one thing, how resistant is a process to fraud.

The fact that all depends of a few swing states and to what seems to be a few swing counties makes it less fraud resistant.

Otherwise, is about representing accurately the will of the majority. In the recent election, the popular vote went to Trump so no question there. But it is not always the case.

The polls as always didn't know shit or (more likely) were manipulated. They were showing Harris lead for the most part, while in fact it was Trump that was in the lead, but CNN wouldn't admit it. No surprise there.

As for the win, I said it a few times that they're both pretty bad candidates, but out of the two Trump is better. I'd never support a socialist and a woke supporter. Harris represents all the things I despise in society. She doesn't care about freedom, what matters for her is equality. But the deal is there's no equality. If there's equality, make men have period! Wait, Tim Walz actually believes men menstruate!

Congratulations Poker Player!

Considering that America is seen as the promoters of democracy in the world it's important they stick practically to what they preach to the world. America election is usually one that the entire globe always beam their searchlight on due to its powerful position in the world.

There were no form of vote buying if you're referring to the $1m initiative introduced by Elon musk in support for Trump. 

Seems we have similar situations  when it comes to general elections in our part's of the world. The orientation is markedly different among our politicians from those of the advanced nations and that's why we will always have elections characterised by violence and all form of electoral malpractice in broad daylight.

When the chairman of the electoral commission is appointed by the sitting president as umpire in the election, results will be compromised and that's why you'll always hardly find incumbent public office holder's like the president in our part's of the world losing any election.  I really don't know much about other previous elections before this but I think this just concluded America election  is a clear testament of how electoral processes ought to go in modern democratic societies.

Congrats on the win Poker Player!

As for this election, IIWII. I've got some concerns with the house potentially going republican as well, which might hinder some of the checks & balances to keep Trump from going wild wild west.

Even if it ends up all republican, I think there are enough level-headed republicans that wouldn't let Trump go completely bat shit crazy, maybe the legal system helps.. it helped with controlling some things during his first term, I guess we'll see.

I'm still baffled the democrats wouldn't have put someone else up, they had the chance to throw anyone in against Trump, and even at the last minute, and they picked Kamala, with a clear attachment and track record with Biden. Similarly, I really wish the Republicans wouldn't have put up Trump again. With the right campaign, they could have picked many different people and had a pretty good shot to win without driving more division.

Neither side seems to be willing to break away from the paths each side has been going down, which seems to be towards the far side(s) of the political spectrum.


https://i.ibb.co/6HYTWfS/regcandidates.png

Looking at this chart makes me wonder if one of these "other" guys would be great for uniting the country, maybe the world. 2024's numbers are not listed in the chart, but based on my count, there were 812 "other" registered candidates this year, outside of the main republican/democrat categories, most of which are either independent, nonpartisan, or unaffiliated. I'd see this jump in numbers as an indication real Americans are unhappy with the paths the established left and right have been going down.

Unfortunately, without a lot of financial and/or media support, most "other" guys never get seen or heard, mainly since the big players in our "free" press all appear to be financially in bed with the established rep/dem groups. I feel like the last 2 elections, at least, I've felt the pressure to vote more against someone and not for someone I actually wanted, which is sad.



That's it?  What about civil war, Abraham Lincoln, emancipation proclamation, 13th amendment, assassination, civil rights movement, etc... we've come a long way. :)

Ok, so a few posts ago you were leaning towards Trump, but now...what am I reading here? Somehow you are now leaning towards not letting Trump do Trump things?

One of the main reasons to not elect Trump I mentioned several times was the level and types of risks that were associated with him and another very big reason is that he owns the Republican party and has been placing his people all over during years. There is no Republican party as you used to know it before him, he has taken it and anyone who dares to oppose goes to the political graveyard.

Sorry to those who thought that Trump could be controlled, would not go to far or somehow would be prevented from suiciding the US international, migration and trade policies and voted for him. Read the small print: no returns accepted.

Your confusion with Kamala is due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the party. The whole "danger to democracy" schtick talking point they espouse tells you exactly what's going on. Trump won the nomination because that's what people wanted. The Democrat party had already picked a different candidate, in case you don't remember. You weren't allowed him. This has been a theme.

---

Srsly?


Misrepresentation and as much as it's true has been enjoyed by previous presidents. Call me when Obama is arrested for gun-running and executing Americans without trial (I'm sure there's plenty of others)


RvW was always bad law. Even RBG said so. Also, Trump is not directly responsible for this and does not support a nationwide ban.

Everyone honest knows that was bullshit. Plus that's always been the case.


Everyone honest knows that was bullshit. They even had to change the law to allow that to be brought. Also, civil convictions are brought on preponderance of evidence (and even that was sketchy) and do not have the weight of a criminal conviction which must be beyond a reasonable doubt.


Straight up lie

This is not a collection of facts that amount to reasons not to vote for Trump, this is a collection of talking points to justify your dislike for Trump. You're not going to convince anyone who looks beyond talking points.

I assume you're referring to me saying (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5510921.msg64657409#msg64657409) "I lean towards Trump as the slightly safer option", maybe a better way to put it is that I lean further away from Kamala than I lean away from Trump?   Neither represent who I'd want to lean towards.



I don't think he owns everyone who represents a republican, although certainly there are many diehard supporters on the right. And there are many diehard supporters on the left. Overall, both candidates here represented too many risks on each side for me, that's why it felt like the extreme's of both sides were running, which creates more division between people with different opinions. There are many republicans that I don't think really like Trump, some maybe not as outspoken as others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign



I didn't like the timing of the swap but I could never really see Biden as a serious option. Outside of any policies or changes he was going to pitch, his cognitive decline, or whatever health issue he is going through, wasn't something I was going to be OK with for 4 more years given the state of the country & world. I could have made that statement well before he announced he was re-running, based on videos I saw, speeches I heard, etc.

I really thought someone else was going to take the reigns at some point sooner, but gave up on that thought as time passed... then bam there was Kamala. *shrug*  Bitter sweet because at least there was another option to look at seriously, but then it appeared to be the same stuff from the past 4 years and pushing it further, which I also wasn't going to be OK with. *shrug*

Whatever opossition was there, after the level of popular support on this campaign, it is over. It is a lot about the money and there is a lot of money after setting tariffs and giving corporation tax breaks. I do not picture any Republican oposing the main points of Trump agenda including all those that make the risk I mentioned more likely after his election.

Well, whatever happens the world will adapt - I mean unless there is a nuclear war or the like.

In fact it was a piggyback ride for Trump who was saddled up  by Musk with the aim  to fulfill his ambitions, get extra money and proceed to further people brainwashing. There is a rumor that he got more than 20 billions boost just during one evening. After Musk acquired  former Twitter ^{(trashed it to the current X)} my first thought he did just for the single purpose i.e. to manipulate people during the future ^{at that time} election campaign and the time has proved that I was correct.

Seeing that the Republicans are also going to take the House, with which they have swept the total of the elections, Presidential, Senate and House, I reaffirm that for such a thing the Democrats must have done very badly during the last 4 years and also in the electoral campaign.

That elitist argument that Trump has won because Republican voters are retarded or misinformed, when most major media outlets except Fox are pro-Democrat, is not wanting to learn anything from what has happened.

That is something that needs to be accepted by the Democrats if they want to be an alternative in the near future. They went too far on the wrong things to get votes that anyway were going to be theirs and did not appeal to the middle classes and the moderates of both sides. Also, they have been indecisive in issues that required decisiveness and that is to be paid.

On the bright side, I think that with this "trifecta" of Government (plus the SCOTUS in the pocket, let's not forget), Trump is going to go full Trump to the point of no return. There are a range of possible scenarios, from a backslash of deportations, getting some fallout from commercial wars, social unrest among some minorities... The Secretaries he is appointing are in the radical zones of the spectrum in some key positions.

No, many of the Trump voters are not stupid retards, and certainly the millionaires that donated have made an excellent deal as they will get a x100 return with tax cuts and SP 500 exhuberance.

Some of you seem to find it hard to understand that many of us don't care if the rich get richer if the rest of us can get richer too. Wealth is not a cake.

Besides, I don't know what the Democratic donors will think. You haven't heard anything about the scandal?

DNC's Lindy Li: Claims Harris campaign $20M in DEBT, staffers not paid, top donors fleeing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3dEwxMiDWg)

How did the Harris campaign blow through $1 billion? | Cuomo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv3XbWtHyMg)

DNC 'in complete turmoil,' finance committee member says in extended interview | NewsNation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQUCBbXaO6s)

How did Kamala Harris’s campaign rack up a debt after record fundraising? (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/14/how-did-kamala-harriss-campaign-rack-up-a-debt-after-record-fundraising)

This is a good example of what a great money manager Harris is. It's not just the mismanagement, it's that she paid a bundle to appear on the sites she appeared on including Oprah, who doesn't need the $1M he paid her at all (and some of it came from modest people who donated $20 and the like) and who has denied it because it appears she didn't pay her directly but her company:

‘I Was Never Paid Anything—Ever’: Oprah Winfrey Denies She Was Paid $1M for Kamala Harris Appearance As Reports Claim Vice President’s Campaign Is $20M In Debt After Spending $1B (https://atlantablackstar.com/2024/11/11/donald-trump-hits-kamala-harris-with-petty-jab/)

I am not sure you are speaking about me, but I am not a wealth redistribution absolutist. I think it is absolutely necessary to have a spectrum of wealth in society. However, at the moment there is a constant concentration of wealth in some individuals and levelling is required for social stability. If you read the Capital in the XXI Century, you will find that such distribution in which "everyone gets richer" does not occur naturally - it requires proactivity.

There is a whole generation of young people whose lives are going to be worse in economic terms than their parents and struggling to emancipate, and I am talking middle class, which shows how that is failing.

Also, wealth is kind of a cake when resources are limited. This is about how goods are distributed and how decisions are made in government. Massive wealth carries massive influence (Hi Elon, yes that is you) which taken to a point makes Democracy less of a democracy.

Re misdoings... I am less concerned about the accounted mismanagement than about the mismanagement that I know is happening and is not recorded nor can be proven.

You see, here we are not going to agree because we start from a fundamental difference of concept.


Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet
 (https://www.superabundance.com/)

But anyway, nice debating with you without the discussion becoming too heated.

I have not read the book, but I can agree with the principle that population growth does not by itself generate scarcity, however despite how wealth is generated eventually has to be assigned to the control of individuals. That is where there is actually a cake and that is something that the large fortunes of this planet have clear that the less taxes, the more wealth is concentrated on them.

Nice talking to you too. I do respect arguments, I am just tired of hearing over an over slogans, accusations, lies... all without any further proof or rationale and let's face it, politics in the US have become extremely divisive - not the best choice for a country that is about to face the growth of their biggest adversaries.

Trump picked a Project 2025 nutjob Brendan Carr as his FCC chairman nominee. Carr apparently wants to get rid of section 230 among other things (like revoking licenses of broadcasters he doesn't like), which is basically what allows sites like Bitcointalk to exist without getting sued out of existence.

I kinda faintly remember someone claiming that Trump represents the "free world" versus the "communism" of the other candidate LOL

Yes, well, we'll have to see what that translates into. I too remember in 2016 a lot of people saying that if Trump won he was going to get us into WW3, and this 2024 another much of the same, when it's not exactly Trump who is playing to see if the world starts throwing nukes at each other.

By the way in all these years when I talked about the censorship that the democrats wanted to carry out, or the one they are carrying out in the UK, you did not say anything. It is clear to me that you are only bothered by censorship when it is from one side.

For the moment, Musk has spoken against the F-35 project saying that is better to have drones and that it is too expensive. I am struggling not to take this as an indication of working for the "enemy". Let's see what else does he want to "cost cut" or "optimise". My guess, he has seen the Pentagon budgets and wants a slice of it.

Trump has announced (which may or may not happen) immediate tariffs with Mexico and Canada. I do not think that will make things cheaper in the US, will it?

I don't want to deviate too much about what suchmoon has said. Apparently he is very concerned about alleged censorship that could supposedly kill bitcointalk (lol) but he wasn't concerned about this:

John Kerry calls the First Amendment a 'major block' to stopping 'disinformation' (https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-kerry-first-amendment-major-block-stopping-disinformation)

VP Candidate Tim Walz on "There's No Guarantee to Free Speech on Misinformation or Hate Speech, and Especially Around Our Democracy" (https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/08/vp-candidate-tim-walz-on-theres-no-guarantee-to-free-speech-on-misinformation-or-hate-speech-and-especially-around-our-democracy/)

Some time ago, he did not make a single comment in this thread:

WTF? YouTube censoring Senator Rand Paul videos? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5352900.msg57621939#msg57621939)

So about social media censoring people who don't think like him he says nothing, about the Democrats wanting to reform the first amendment and create a body (controlled by them) to censor what can be said or not either and now due to this appointment he comes to tell us that we are going to lose freedom.

Lol.

Did you like the appointment of Jay Bhattacharya? I think it deserves a few beers with popcorn, and because it's been more than a decade since I smoked a joint otherwise I'd have one too.

You can't possibly expect me to comment in every thread but I have said many times in many different threads that social media sites should be able to have and enforce their own rules (within the law of course), that's their free speech rights. Bitcointalk can ban any shitposter, Elon can ban anyone who criticizes him on whatever he's calling his site today. Trump (or Biden) should not be able to tell how to moderate those sites. First amendment is about the government not making laws restricting free speech, i.e. the opposite of the attempts of these new trumplings to force media to publish certain content. And to preempt any further "whataboutism" - if Hillary or Obama or George Washington did anything like that, it would be wrong too.


It would, but the deep state (aka basic math and economics) will not allow it. Trump will need a third term to really fix it.

You haven't commented on any of them at all. Neither did you then when I commented on the censorship occurring in social media in different threads nor have you done so more recently when I referenced Kerry's and Walz's statements in several threads in this section.


No, that's not what we're talking about. Fundamental rights should not be left to the whim of private companies; they should be respected regardless of company policy. Here I have been able to express myself without censorship in a way that I would not have been able to do in social media because here free speech is defended and you are not censored for your ideas.


Oh, okay, now you're really worried about the First Amendment, aren't you?

This might be because what you call "censorship" in social media is what also allows sites like Bitcointalk to exist but my point still stands, me not commenting in some other thread is irrelevant here.


There is no fundamental right for you to go and post anything you want on facebook, just like there is no fundamental right for you to go on Fox News and talk about anything you want. You can however run your own site any way you want (or pick a site that fits your needs, I'm sure there are many), and that's far more important than the content on sites run by someone else. Which by the way is also likely at risk under the new administration, considering their position against net neutrality. ISP censoring your internet would arguably be a much bigger threat to your free speech than any individual site or media platform rules.


What I'm saying here is consistent with what I've said in the past, so your implication is misplaced.

Would you say the same if Biden tried to force Truth Social or Musk's Not-Twitter to publish at least 50% of left-wing content?

I would, put it this way:

Anyone (legal or individual entity) should be able to construct their own rule-set, within the law.
Then, they should allow people to willingly join them, conforming with their rules.
In this territory, the entity that owns it, is allowed to do and say whatever they want.
Nobody else (legal or individual entity) is allowed to enforce changes to this set of rules.

Having said that, Facebook, TikTok, Bitcointalk, YouTube etc. have their own sets of rules and nobody can knowingly ignore them, no matter who they are.
On the other hand, however, Apogio's Forum (hypothetical forum), could have my set of rules and I could express my opinion however I wanted.

The big media outlets like Facebook and Youtube only destroy themselves when they censor content. You can see this by how X and others have grown.

8)

I am afraid that despite Trump being able to count with the fingers, he is not great at basic math. It may be required that the "deep state" - AKA people who understand consequences - will have to be DOGEd like the General Attorneys, the public servants, etc...

See, nothing that Trump cannot short out. It does not mean that he will not need a third term... and a fourth if he is not worm food by then. He is ok with that I think.

You mean you haven't signed up yet? Lol.

Don’t Cry, Cryo! 😂 Need a Break from Trump’s Term? Freeze Yourself for 4 Years! (https://x.com/realnewzy/status/1856719517348458842?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1856719517348458842%7Ctwgr%5E03e6113bd912b2f467ff8a6a007781407293b409%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freedomsphoenix.com%2FNews%2F371005-2024-11-14-hilarious-parody-ad-features-company-that-offers-to-cryogenically-freeze.htm)


8)

No, it doesn't stand because we are not talking about you not commenting on one thread, we are talking about you not saying anything at all in all the repeated (and there have been many) times I have complained in different posts about censorship by left-wing parties (like the current one in the UK) or censorship plans (like Kerry's and Walz's).

What a coincidence that the other two who like you defend objective reality in an unbiased way (but who always tend to agree with the democrats) didn't comment on this either.


Yes, there is. The case of Fox news (or CNN, it doesn't matter) is different because if they call me, I can limit what I want to talk about, and so can they.

Facebook, on the other hand, is a social network that cannot limit the right to freedom of expression because they feel like it, in the same way that they cannot allow people to talk about the extermination of blacks or homosexuals for supposedly being inferior if they feel like it.


No it isn't as explained above.


I don't know anything about truth social and about X I see quite a few leftist opinions now that they are used to censorship and Musk allows right-wing views they can't stand it and want to go elsewhere. But, yes, here there is no obligation on this very forum and the owner being an ancap lets you leftists express yourselves freely.


I'm sure you can find plenty of things to criticise Trump for other than such ridiculousness. A guy who has almost $6B in net worth  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump)isn't great at basic math?


There's a funny thing about you, you know, I don't have you on ignore but it's as if I have you.

I'm not quite following what you're complaining about. I haven't responded in your thread about $100k (just picked a random example from your post history). Does that mean I'm biased against Bitcoin?

If I had said something different in another context than what I'm saying here, you'd have a point. Even then it's kinda pointless argument, as whataboutism tends to be. If "leftists" do it, and Trump does it, is that a good thing or a bad thing?


Actually they can and they do and the law and common sense is on their side. There is no obligation for a private business to provide an online platform for everything, just like there is no obligation for me to allow you to have a speech in my backyard. The government can run their own social media site if it deems it necessary as a public service (and the taxpayers approve) and arguably such a site would need to allow all sorts of shit on it, similar to how publicly-funded universities are providing venues for various nutjobs from different sides of the political spectrum.


That's kinda the opposite of reality. Sites can allow this type of user-generated content and there are some that do.

The funny thing is that the proposed changes to (or repeal of) section 230 would not create more "freedom" in online speech. Most likely it would result in more control on content, as it would subject sites to more liability if "bad" content gets posted by users.


That's not the question I asked. Would you be ok if the government mandated it?


Big math genius in action: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/politics/video/trump-interview-tariffs-bloomberg-chicago-digvid

Huh. You're smarter than I'd have guessed.

Since you don't have me on 'ignore', look into the things that I talk about. My disclaimer is that I make mistakes like everybody else. But the things that I show are either great truths, or point to great truths.

8)

It is very unlikely that Trump has 6 B in NET worth. He tends to brag about his assets, particularly buildings - that you can value quite imaginatively  (https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-letitia-james-new-york-engoron-38bc3a7f2ccb22555c026e9bf70fd5bb), but he does not speak of his liabilities.

There is no doubt Daddy Trump was the right type of businessman to get something built in New York - which is not much about counting exactly - but his son is just the classic persona that thinks he is smart, but is pretty average. Funny thing is that Trump has not made his accounting public and fought a lot to keep it secret.
The family is kind of good at keeping secrets and having a go at make-up.




dumBAss, go post some walltext to with links to your favourite conspiratard somewhere else and let the adults in the room speak.

Sjw&woke Kingdom is collapsing. The west will once again become home to virtuous women and honest men. The globalists are on the run and they are making their last moves to start another world war before Trump comes to power but they are in denial.

Nothing can stop Trump Train.

The world is fed up with their woke crap.

Someone is still on the high of the after-elections I can see. But I think that the "woke" thing is here to stay. However the Democrats will have to figure out if that should be the main focus of their future campaigns because it is divisive, controversial and brings little for the middle american out there which is ok with whatever social freedoms and diversity, but is more concern with practical matters.

LaDeDa... LOL. Trump is starting his 'Jack Smith' style trial preparations against the Biden Administration. If Trump was guilty of a little, the Biden Admin is guilty of a mountain.


Sunday Live: Trump Goes on Total Warpath Against the Deep State! (https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/371848-2024-12-02-sunday-live-trump-goes-on-total-warpath-against-the-deep.htm)

---

https://banned.video/watch?id=674d2a7d234c12a36933ee54&__cf_chl_f_tk=jcWdiFmXzUxKHXLwwWk2rDCP4ywn6QlA2zbbqYu0OSc-1733194511-1.0.1.1-9HBi4m8UMQPa.oT7SA2VlkTJvOZtgxZn.jEJSUzPXik

Sunday Live: Trump Goes on Total Warpath Against the Deep State! Incoming Administration Announces Plan to Prosecute Biden Admin For Human Trafficking Sex Slavery - FULL SHOW - 12/01/2024
... (https://banned.video/watch?id=674d2a7d234c12a36933ee54&__cf_chl_f_tk=jcWdiFmXzUxKHXLwwWk2rDCP4ywn6QlA2zbbqYu0OSc-1733194511-1.0.1.1-9HBi4m8UMQPa.oT7SA2VlkTJvOZtgxZn.jEJSUzPXik)

---

8)