[BET] Trump or not Trump 2020, eddie13 vs suchmoon

[squatz1]

So you made all of that money after the 5% fee?

Just as a question, because I've never personally used PredictIT do they spell it out pretty clearly when buying the 'yes' or 'no' portion of the bet that they will be charging you that 5%? I feel like they don't really push it enough, and people are just told that they can make some 'free money' on this platform without taking into account the fees.

It's like the markets (I think this was one of them) where you could bet as to if Kanye would win or something along those lines. You may be able to make 5% on the 'no' side, but all of that is going to go to PredictIt anyway. Plus you're going to be further losing when it comes to credit card fees and such.

There are two different fees: profit fee (10%) and withdrawal fee (5%). Profit fee is mostly bearable because you pay it only if you win and only on the winnings. So if you bet $80, win  $100, you pay $2. The only caveat is that you don't get a fee refund on losses so might wanna be careful rolling over some losing positions.

Withdrawal fee sucks bigly. Basically you have to pay it win or lose, on the whole amount. Which means you need to make at least +5% to break even. The good thing (and probably part of the reason for this fee) is that they accept credit card deposits. So with a 2% credit card cashback it's slightly less horrible.

But of course you can keep betting as much as you like before withdrawing... which is I think what most people are doing there, particularly with these really stupid bets like Trump winning the popular vote. Bet, wait for it to pump a few cents, sell, rinse and repeat. There is a $800 limit per market per person, and max 5000 traders per market, so some of the most popular markets like Dem vs Rep president are full... but there are others like "South Carolina Dem Primary winner elected president", which is basically the same thing. And all trade around 1:9 instead of 1:99 as it should. Insanity.

Ah. Yeah, the withdrawal fee is all I remember being told about. Wasn't so sure about the other fees that are present.

I'm guessing the withdrawal fee for them is just a catch all to deal with credit card processing, as they're in a pretty high risk category when it comes to chargebacks, probably high fee, and so on. Not fully sure on how the legality works when it comes to PredictIt as it is gambling, though they do have those limits per market which is what you spoke of.

May go on there and play with it a bit in an attempt to make a few bucks, lol. Just was always a bit pissed about the whole 5% fees. But I was under the impression that it was 5% plus processing fees, so with a 2% cashback card it takes a bit off and I, thankfully, have one of those.

[1714932432]

1714932432

[1714932432]

1714932432

[1714932432]

1714932432

[1714932432]

1714932432

[1714932432]

1714932432

[seoincorporation]

Hey suchmoon, congrats for this winning, i didn't think Trump could lose this one but looks the pandemic and all that people dying win that country plays an important role on this elections. When there were the elections vs Hillary odds was paying x5 on trump, i bet on trump and i get some nice profit, and is nice to see someone making profit while he lose the bone, so congrats again 

[suchmoon]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

[...] this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.

Will that be the end of this nonsense? Nah, I think Trumplings will claim that the federal judge is on Soros' payroll and is refusing to see the invisible evidence.

[suchmoon]

Time for you to get woke on #stopthesteal suchmoon. I spent at least 3 hours watching various videos with that hashtag on twitter today. It's a lot of fun tbh.

I watched one claiming that Mao wrote the software that counts the votes (I may have some details wrong since I was too busy laughing).

[TwitchySeal]

Can Trumppers boycotting the GA Senate runoffs bc the whole world is rigged against them really be a thing?

Seems too good to be true

https://www.newsweek.com/georgia-trump-supporters-destroy-gop-boycott-senate-runoffs-1549245

[PrimeNumber7]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

[TwitchySeal]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.  In most cases, it doesn't appear there is - the arguments are basically nonsense.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand.  

[nullius]

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.

Why do appeals exist?  /logic

[PrimeNumber7]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.  In most cases, it doesn't appear there is - the arguments are basically nonsense.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand. 

The lower court rulings have nothing to do with how higher courts will rule.

Case in point, how many lower (and appellate) courts ruled against Trump regarding his travel ban? How many times has the SC struck down lower courts who have ruled against Trump in the last 4 years?

[suchmoon]

Can Trumppers boycotting the GA Senate runoffs bc the whole world is rigged against them really be a thing?

LOL I had the same question in the other thread. Seems to me like someone might be trolling QAnonists but you never know with those morons... could be real.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand.  

This PA case was so blatantly stupid that I can imagine SCOTUS refusing to take it, same with most of those 30+ cases really. Or they can take it and slap Trump down again to make a point that elections are not to be fucked with. I don't think even ACB and the beer boy would be able to stretch the constitution to invalidate millions of ballots based on a couple of questionable anecdotes.

[squatz1]

Can Trumppers boycotting the GA Senate runoffs bc the whole world is rigged against them really be a thing?

LOL I had the same question in the other thread. Seems to me like someone might be trolling QAnonists but you never know with those morons... could be real.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand.  

This PA case was so blatantly stupid that I can imagine SCOTUS refusing to take it, same with most of those 30+ cases really. Or they can take it and slap Trump down again to make a point that elections are not to be fucked with. I don't think even ACB and the beer boy would be able to stretch the constitution to invalidate millions of ballots based on a couple of questionable anecdotes.

Yeah, I think that Trump thinks that the judges that he vetted and picked are going to -- for some reason - disregard the rule of law that they've studied, followed, and enforced on the courts prior to the SC, just for him?

Just like when Trump met with some of the legislatures from Michigan, did he think that these people were going to just bow to him and disregard the fact that they'd probably be starting a civil war if they tried to invalidate the results of the election in their state.

This is all going to end soon, hopefully.

[TwitchySeal]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.  In most cases, it doesn't appear there is - the arguments are basically nonsense.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand. 

The lower court rulings have nothing to do with how higher courts will rule.

Case in point, how many lower (and appellate) courts ruled against Trump regarding his travel ban? How many times has the SC struck down lower courts who have ruled against Trump in the last 4 years?

If one judge thinks a case is bonkers its a pretty good indicator that another judge will think the case is bonkers.

[squatz1]

Trump got slapped down in PA:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.202.0_1.pdf

The lower court rulings are not going to matter. You should expect at least one PA case to make it to the SCOTUS.

Trump is challenging the election results in court. Expect there to be multiple lawsuits and SC rulings.

The lower court rulings are a pretty good indicator of whether or not there's a valid legal argument being made.  In most cases, it doesn't appear there is - the arguments are basically nonsense.

I doubt SCOTUS even bothers with most of the ones that haven't been dropped and the lower court rulings will stand. 

The lower court rulings have nothing to do with how higher courts will rule.

Case in point, how many lower (and appellate) courts ruled against Trump regarding his travel ban? How many times has the SC struck down lower courts who have ruled against Trump in the last 4 years?

If one judge thinks a case is bonkers its a pretty good indicator that another judge will think the case is bonkers.

Yeah, especially if the judges that are throwing out Trumps cases are conservative in the way they rule on cases and were sometimes even appointed by Trump. Pretty good indication if every single legal expert that is in the news, both conservative and liberal, are saying that the cases that are out there aren't likely to change the outcome of anything.

There's literally nothing happening right now that is going on right now that has the ability to make Trump the President.

[suchmoon]

Yeah, especially if the judges that are throwing out Trumps cases are conservative in the way they rule on cases and were sometimes even appointed by Trump. Pretty good indication if every single legal expert that is in the news, both conservative and liberal, are saying that the cases that are out there aren't likely to change the outcome of anything.

There's literally nothing happening right now that is going on right now that has the ability to make Trump the President.

And it's not like these are tough or questionable decisions... those cases are being tossed for being frivolous. Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC, and some of those cases have actually been dropped by lawyers/plaintiffs themselves probably because they realize how much shit they'd be in if they continue to push Trump's lies (keep in mind that Trump is not the plaintiff in any of the cases - it's usually his campaign or some allegedly aggrieved voters).

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

[PrimeNumber7]

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

[nullius]

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

*Weird flex*.  It reminds me of:

It is the modern liberal that is against free speech.

Have my last remaining sMerit.

If, even in a case whereby the facts are undisputed, a drug-addicted rapist and murderer with a record of an incorrigibly felonious character were to lack an all-star legal dream team for his final death-row appeal, then the liberals would scream!

Whereas if an attorney dares to represent aggrieved voters and/or the reëlection campaign for the President of the United States, then he is a “nutjob” who is ipso facto engaged in frivolous litigation and other unethical conduct—subject even to disbarment (!).

Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC,

You are obviously not a lawyer.  You have no idea what the standards for disbarment are.  Please stop opining from total ignorance—or else hit up West/Lexis, and show some case law applicable to any circumstance even remotely similar.  Every state has mountains of published opinions about its rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  Have fun with that.

[TwitchySeal]

And BTW the reason we have nutjobs like Rudy Giuliani and Lin Wood now on these cases is that reputable law firms don't want to touch this nonsense.

Actually law firms have decided to not represent the Trump campaign because of public pressure against these law firms and their other clients.

The pressure campaign to get law firms to drop the Trump Campaign as a client should be condemned in the strongest way possible. Everyone has a right to legal representation.

Representing a client is not an endorsement of their alleged actions or viewpoints. Representing a client is a means to ensure their rights are not violated and that the law is properly enforced.

You'd be right if we were talking about a criminal case.  Even the worst murderers deserve a vigorous defense, but these are frivolous lawsuits that the Trump campaign is using as a vehicle to raise money, spread disinformation and undermine the integrity of the election. 

[sirazimuth]

You are obviously not a lawyer.  You have no idea what the standards for disbarment are.  Please stop opining from total ignorance—or else hit up West/Lexis, and show some case law applicable to any circumstance even remotely similar.  Every state has mountains of published opinions about its rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  Have fun with that.

You know, I’d far rather read suchmoon’s concise, insightful posts than your
mountains of pompous “I’m smarter than you” pseudo philosophical boring drivel
that I have to scroll past....
 have fun with that....

[suchmoon]

You know, I’d far rather read suchmoon’s concise, insightful posts than your
mountains of pompous “I’m smarter than you” pseudo philosophical boring drivel
that I have to scroll past....
 have fun with that....

Why, thank you, Sir Azimuth. You forgot to comment on my chances of winning the bet... how bad is it, give it to me straight.

[TwitchySeal]

Some disbarments are more likely than this getting past SC,

You are obviously not a lawyer.  You have no idea what the standards for disbarment are.  Please stop opining from total ignorance—or else hit up West/Lexis, and show some case law applicable to any circumstance even remotely similar.  Every state has mountains of published opinions about its rules of professional conduct for attorneys.  Have fun with that.

Assuming 'some disbarments' means some lawyers involved in Trumps election lawsuits getting disbarred in the near future and 'getting past SC' means the Trump campaign receiving a favorable SCOTUS ruling, while both are unlikely, I think a favorable SCOTUS ruling is clearly less likely, mostly because of Rudy.  

I know it's rare that disbarments happen, but this is a pretty unique situation.  Check out why Nixon, his VP and about a dozen other lawyers were disbarred (or worse) after Nixon left office.