Showdown: Trump Vs Haley. Bitcoin betting on the 2024 US Presidential Election

[Hispo]

-snip-

2023 is going to be crucial. One thing is sure. If Trump is the Republican nominee for 2024, then in all probability the Americans will have to deal with another 4 years of Democrat rule.

You are implying that if Trump somehow manages to get the Republican party nomination he will lose, which I believe it would be still depend on his opponent.
Many things can still happen in 2023, that is true, but I would only feel comfortable betting against Donald J Trump if his political foe from the Democrat party is popular enough to synergize well with the unpopularity that Trump has got this year. De Santis is out the equation until he formally runs, in practical terms.

There are people already suggesting Trump won't make it to the through the primaries, but I believe it is a mistake to underestimate him like back in 2016.

[1714201657]

1714201657

[1714201657]

1714201657

[1714201657]

1714201657

[1714201657]

1714201657

[1714201657]

1714201657

[jostorres]

2023 is going to be crucial. One thing is sure. If Trump is the Republican nominee for 2024, then in all probability the Americans will have to deal with another 4 years of Democrat rule. Trump doesn't have the ability to win swing states and in the US elections the winner needs to take the swing states. DeSantis has that ability. But if Trump puts up a fight and decides to stand as a write-in candidate, then the GOP votes will get split. DeSantis has got plenty of support till now, and that is even before he has formally announced his plans for 2024.

I do agree that it's a bit of a "who will make their votes come out" and usually Trump makes Democrats come out and vote, and that’s a bit of a trouble for republicans. For decades republicans lived off the idea that democrats do not vote as much as republicans do, higher share of republicans vote for everything even in the smallest elections whereas democrats rarely do, but thanks to Trump all democrats come out and vote against him, doesn't matter who is against him.

So, republicans need to wise up and not nominate Trump, that would be their end and if they are given 4 more years of democrat president, there is a chance supreme court could change very very much so.

[Sithara007]

So, republicans need to wise up and not nominate Trump, that would be their end and if they are given 4 more years of democrat president, there is a chance supreme court could change very very much so.

Now this is a serious concern for the Republicans. Right now the SCOTUS has a conservative majority. But this month, Democrats got the majority in Senate and will be able to push through their radical-left nominees (similar to Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor). They don't even need votes from conservative Democrat senators such as Manchin, as the majority is 52-48 (I added Georgia to the Dem column, and also Alaska as Murkowski is more radical left than most of the Democrat senators). And some of the Republican senators such as Mitt Romney are rumored to be waiting for an opportunity to jump to the other side.

[FanEagle]

So, republicans need to wise up and not nominate Trump, that would be their end and if they are given 4 more years of democrat president, there is a chance supreme court could change very very much so.

Now this is a serious concern for the Republicans. Right now the SCOTUS has a conservative majority. But this month, Democrats got the majority in Senate and will be able to push through their radical-left nominees (similar to Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor). They don't even need votes from conservative Democrat senators such as Manchin, as the majority is 52-48 (I added Georgia to the Dem column, and also Alaska as Murkowski is more radical left than most of the Democrat senators). And some of the Republican senators such as Mitt Romney are rumored to be waiting for an opportunity to jump to the other side.

I feel like that is justified and understandable. I mean after all during Obama's very last year, Republicans didn't allow Obama to appoint a new SCOTUS member, and during Trumps last year they did appointed a SCOTUS member. Which shows that if you change the rules while playing, then Biden could very well make the scotus be like 1000 member thing and appoint 990+ of them himself all pure democrat, some even radical left. I am not saying he would, that's of course not going to happen, but could make it 18 or so to get the majority.

I can hear that you may say "but that would be cheating!!" but Republicans did just that, if Obama couldn't so shouldn't Trump, if Trump did then so could Obama, if you change what can be done and can't be done based on who has the power, then when they get the power, do not cry about how unfair they could become. You were unfair to them, they are being unfair to you.

[LUCKMCFLY]

If Biden behaved adequately, then no one would talk about age even if he was 90 years old. But he often looks into the void, goes in an incomprehensible direction and behaves like an old man who is lost. At the same time, Trump is behaving very cheerfully. This difference has been noticeable to everyone in recent years, so part of the voters will not vote For someone, but rather Against the fact that a person with dementia is the president.
In general, it would be good (for American voters) if they had a wider choice, including younger candidates.

With ever passing day, Biden is resembling more and more like a walking corpse. There are conspiracy theories that claim that the original plan from the Democrats was to replace him mid-way through his term with Kamala Harris. But that would be another disaster, given her radical left-wing agenda. For 2024, IMO it would be again Biden vs Trump. Kamala is still unpalatable for the vast majority of the independent voters. And by then Biden will be 81 years old and Trump would be 78 years old. I sincerely hope that the GOP would rather nominate Ron DeSantis.

It's good that in the United States the power is quite centralized and no madman, even if he became president, can break everything. Kamala Harris is rejected by the average voter not only because she is a leftist, but because she seems frankly dumb - she laughs dumbly at any questions and spouts some kind of nonsense. Even AOC looks like an intellectual against her background.

I really think that for now the government of the USA is in a certain normal degree, if in case Donald Trump wins again I don't know how much he would do, but I think it is not convenient for the world to do it, although there is the possibility that be the best mediator between the war in Russia and Ukraine, it can be a catalyst for many things that happen around the world and that cannot be channeled except with changes of government, in the case of Trump, he will change immigration policies again, eventually He will make it clear that he will make changes in his cabinet or in heads of authorities, and he would totally go nuclear.

[Slow death]

If Biden behaved adequately, then no one would talk about age even if he was 90 years old. But he often looks into the void, goes in an incomprehensible direction and behaves like an old man who is lost. At the same time, Trump is behaving very cheerfully. This difference has been noticeable to everyone in recent years, so part of the voters will not vote For someone, but rather Against the fact that a person with dementia is the president.
In general, it would be good (for American voters) if they had a wider choice, including younger candidates.

With ever passing day, Biden is resembling more and more like a walking corpse. There are conspiracy theories that claim that the original plan from the Democrats was to replace him mid-way through his term with Kamala Harris. But that would be another disaster, given her radical left-wing agenda. For 2024, IMO it would be again Biden vs Trump. Kamala is still unpalatable for the vast majority of the independent voters. And by then Biden will be 81 years old and Trump would be 78 years old. I sincerely hope that the GOP would rather nominate Ron DeSantis.

It's good that in the United States the power is quite centralized and no madman, even if he became president, can break everything. Kamala Harris is rejected by the average voter not only because she is a leftist, but because she seems frankly dumb - she laughs dumbly at any questions and spouts some kind of nonsense. Even AOC looks like an intellectual against her background.

I really think that for now the government of the USA is in a certain normal degree, if in case Donald Trump wins again I don't know how much he would do, but I think it is not convenient for the world to do it, although there is the possibility that be the best mediator between the war in Russia and Ukraine, it can be a catalyst for many things that happen around the world and that cannot be channeled except with changes of government, in the case of Trump, he will change immigration policies again, eventually He will make it clear that he will make changes in his cabinet or in heads of authorities, and he would totally go nuclear.

if donaldo trump changed his stance on immigrants then he would gain more support from the people, also some other things he needs to change would be he distances himself a bit from white supremacists because that is creating a strain on the republican party, for example vice president of the party in the senate described trump's meeting with white supremacists as a ridiculous meeting, this is not a good trump move, I hope that his pre-campaign adviser can see that these moves are not good for his image, he needs to gain many allies and supporters and not have many enemies

[o48o]

With ever passing day, Biden is resembling more and more like a walking corpse. There are conspiracy theories that claim that the original plan from the Democrats was to replace him mid-way through his term with Kamala Harris. But that would be another disaster, given her radical left-wing agenda. For 2024, IMO it would be again Biden vs Trump. Kamala is still unpalatable for the vast majority of the independent voters. And by then Biden will be 81 years old and Trump would be 78 years old. I sincerely hope that the GOP would rather nominate Ron DeSantis.

This "Radical-left" ranting is so funny to hear from Finnish point of view, to which Kamala Harris and almost every american candinate is more or less right wing.


I don't personally like Kamala Harris but i see her having way more realistic changes then my favourite (Pete Buttigieg) so if i would bet for democrats, it would be Kamala. But looking from here it seems obvious that Ron DeSantis wins.

[Sithara007]

~~~
I don't personally like Kamala Harris but i see her having way more realistic changes then my favourite (Pete Buttigieg) so if i would bet for democrats, it would be Kamala. But looking from here it seems obvious that Ron DeSantis wins.

Pete Buttigieg has more chances in my opinion to win over the independent voters. Kamala may score better in deep-blue states such as California and New York, but in order to win the POTUS elections, you need the swing states (Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin.etc). And I will tell you this: Kamala has almost zero chances of winning states such as Georgia. Buttigieg is more like a centrist, and he comes from a deep-red state (Indiana). But things may change, as two years remain for the next elections. Kamala is the most possible Democrat nominee, but you never know.

[SquallLeonhart]

I really think that for now the government of the USA is in a certain normal degree, if in case Donald Trump wins again I don't know how much he would do, but I think it is not convenient for the world to do it, although there is the possibility that be the best mediator between the war in Russia and Ukraine, it can be a catalyst for many things that happen around the world and that cannot be channeled except with changes of government, in the case of Trump, he will change immigration policies again, eventually He will make it clear that he will make changes in his cabinet or in heads of authorities, and he would totally go nuclear.

The interesting thing, as someone who disliked Trump all his presidency, he sucks and he is bad and I still dislike him but I also come to realization that there aren't any "huge" differences with others neither.

And that is a trouble, if you look at who could be the candidates from the republican side, they all suck, still most have a better face for it, like they are kinder when they talk usually but then go about and do the same thing, so the end result is always the same, and for democrats Biden is kinder and nicer person but then goes and does the same thing mostly. Which means, Trump or someone else, we will have people who will do the same thing, but be nicer about it, and be kinder to people while doing it, not much change in the end result though.

[o48o]

The interesting thing, as someone who disliked Trump all his presidency, he sucks and he is bad and I still dislike him but I also come to realization that there aren't any "huge" differences with others neither.

And that is a trouble, if you look at who could be the candidates from the republican side, they all suck, still most have a better face for it, like they are kinder when they talk usually but then go about and do the same thing, so the end result is always the same, and for democrats Biden is kinder and nicer person but then goes and does the same thing mostly. Which means, Trump or someone else, we will have people who will do the same thing, but be nicer about it, and be kinder to people while doing it, not much change in the end result though.

One thing Trump could do that others wouldn't is to quit ties with NATO. As he alreasy haa threaten to do so. This could lead to full blown war with Europe and Russia that would spread like a wild fire towards ww3. I am not even kidding, i know people like to use ww3 as a cliche scare tactic, but this war would in a whole different scale, like something we haven't ever seen before.

I am not sure if his voters care as lot's of them wouldn't understand that it would very much affect them.

However i can't see this affecting betting ratios.

[Sithara007]

One thing Trump could do that others wouldn't is to quit ties with NATO. As he alreasy haa threaten to do so. This could lead to full blown war with Europe and Russia that would spread like a wild fire towards ww3. I am not even kidding, i know people like to use ww3 as a cliche scare tactic, but this war would in a whole different scale, like something we haven't ever seen before.

I am not sure if his voters care as lot's of them wouldn't understand that it would very much affect them.

However i can't see this affecting betting ratios.

I don't think that Trump supports the dissolution of NATO. What he wants is more contribution from the EU nations. US spends close to $600 billion every year on defense purposes, while the military budget of nations such as Germany and England remains as a small percentage if their national GDP. Trump wants the EU nations to contribute in terms of funds, equipment and manpower. And I don't think that there is anything wrong in what he says. Why should the US subsidize the national defense of EU nations? Doesn't make any sense.

[darewaller]

I don't think that Trump supports the dissolution of NATO. What he wants is more contribution from the EU nations. US spends close to $600 billion every year on defense purposes, while the military budget of nations such as Germany and England remains as a small percentage if their national GDP. Trump wants the EU nations to contribute in terms of funds, equipment and manpower. And I don't think that there is anything wrong in what he says. Why should the US subsidize the national defense of EU nations? Doesn't make any sense.

There is also a good way of saying "we just won't spend this much on military anymore" and the left would be all behind that, would Trump do that? Or is he just want more for the people who bribed him to be there?

If you spend 800 billion on military and lets say that 100 of that goes to spending on NATO, would you cut it to 700 and not help NATO, or would you keep it at 800 and spend it on Warhawk companies in the USA? That's the real question, if we are talking about a cut, which Trump could have done any time in his 4 year tenure, that would be fine and accepted by everyone, this is why it would be a lot better if we just knew what he would do by his first 4 years, if he didn't then nobody would trust him to do it in another 4 years, could be a big lie.

[Sithara007]

There is also a good way of saying "we just won't spend this much on military anymore" and the left would be all behind that, would Trump do that? Or is he just want more for the people who bribed him to be there?

If you spend 800 billion on military and lets say that 100 of that goes to spending on NATO, would you cut it to 700 and not help NATO, or would you keep it at 800 and spend it on Warhawk companies in the USA? That's the real question, if we are talking about a cut, which Trump could have done any time in his 4 year tenure, that would be fine and accepted by everyone, this is why it would be a lot better if we just knew what he would do by his first 4 years, if he didn't then nobody would trust him to do it in another 4 years, could be a big lie.

First of all, Trump is a businessman. Do you really expect him to take a stance against these big private defense companies such as Boeing and Raytheon? There is a big difference in what he says in the public, and what he practices in reality. No politician, whether he is Republican or Democrat has the courage to take on sectors such as Pharma and Defense, who are like parasites leaching the American society. Even medications for common diseases such as diabetes cost 10x or 20x more in the United States, compared to the prices in Canada. Trump didn't did anything to relieve this issue when he was the POTUS.

[wiss19]

I don't think that Trump supports the dissolution of NATO. What he wants is more contribution from the EU nations. US spends close to $600 billion every year on defense purposes, while the military budget of nations such as Germany and England remains as a small percentage if their national GDP. Trump wants the EU nations to contribute in terms of funds, equipment and manpower. And I don't think that there is anything wrong in what he says. Why should the US subsidize the national defense of EU nations? Doesn't make any sense.

There is also a good way of saying "we just won't spend this much on military anymore" and the left would be all behind that, would Trump do that? Or is he just want more for the people who bribed him to be there?

If you spend 800 billion on military and lets say that 100 of that goes to spending on NATO, would you cut it to 700 and not help NATO, or would you keep it at 800 and spend it on Warhawk companies in the USA? That's the real question, if we are talking about a cut, which Trump could have done any time in his 4 year tenure, that would be fine and accepted by everyone, this is why it would be a lot better if we just knew what he would do by his first 4 years, if he didn't then nobody would trust him to do it in another 4 years, could be a big lie.

I would guess that the whole nation would be cheering for that, imagine a situation where the government becomes an insurance company, they are failing to even do that, any candidate that explain this clearly would make a big profit.

First of all, you could cap the income of medicine and hospital companies, if you end up with 4-5 trillion a year spent on healthcare when the same amount of sickness causes it to be 500-600 billion just across the border, that's a problem, and you could do free healthcare for 800 billion that they are spending right now.

Imagine a USA that has very low amount of military power, lets say 100 billion a year, and instead the rest of the money goes to free healthcare for everyone? That candidate would win with 100+ million votes.

[LUCKMCFLY]

If Biden behaved adequately, then no one would talk about age even if he was 90 years old. But he often looks into the void, goes in an incomprehensible direction and behaves like an old man who is lost. At the same time, Trump is behaving very cheerfully. This difference has been noticeable to everyone in recent years, so part of the voters will not vote For someone, but rather Against the fact that a person with dementia is the president.
In general, it would be good (for American voters) if they had a wider choice, including younger candidates.

With ever passing day, Biden is resembling more and more like a walking corpse. There are conspiracy theories that claim that the original plan from the Democrats was to replace him mid-way through his term with Kamala Harris. But that would be another disaster, given her radical left-wing agenda. For 2024, IMO it would be again Biden vs Trump. Kamala is still unpalatable for the vast majority of the independent voters. And by then Biden will be 81 years old and Trump would be 78 years old. I sincerely hope that the GOP would rather nominate Ron DeSantis.

It's good that in the United States the power is quite centralized and no madman, even if he became president, can break everything. Kamala Harris is rejected by the average voter not only because she is a leftist, but because she seems frankly dumb - she laughs dumbly at any questions and spouts some kind of nonsense. Even AOC looks like an intellectual against her background.

I really think that for now the government of the USA is in a certain normal degree, if in case Donald Trump wins again I don't know how much he would do, but I think it is not convenient for the world to do it, although there is the possibility that be the best mediator between the war in Russia and Ukraine, it can be a catalyst for many things that happen around the world and that cannot be channeled except with changes of government, in the case of Trump, he will change immigration policies again, eventually He will make it clear that he will make changes in his cabinet or in heads of authorities, and he would totally go nuclear.

if donaldo trump changed his stance on immigrants then he would gain more support from the people, also some other things he needs to change would be he distances himself a bit from white supremacists because that is creating a strain on the republican party, for example vice president of the party in the senate described trump's meeting with white supremacists as a ridiculous meeting, this is not a good trump move, I hope that his pre-campaign adviser can see that these moves are not good for his image, he needs to gain many allies and supporters and not have many enemies

Yes, it is that the trend that is taking place in the world is not just anything, since things that are so radical are not giving much result, politics must be much more open and have another direction, another criteria, have and accept more things, the voters who at one point supported Donald Trump made it clear to them that there were many things that he did not comply with, for whatever reason, but he did not do many things, what is clear to me is that he would not have allowed the fight or war between Ukraine and Russia, he has a lot of influence over Putin, and both have a lot of respect for each other, maybe that's why it's a good thing that didn't happen.

On the other hand, the treatment he gives to immigrants drives them away, and drives away many votes, especially now that so many have entered, perhaps Biden's policies don't help Trump shine so much.

[Sithara007]

I would guess that the whole nation would be cheering for that, imagine a situation where the government becomes an insurance company, they are failing to even do that, any candidate that explain this clearly would make a big profit.

First of all, you could cap the income of medicine and hospital companies, if you end up with 4-5 trillion a year spent on healthcare when the same amount of sickness causes it to be 500-600 billion just across the border, that's a problem, and you could do free healthcare for 800 billion that they are spending right now.

Imagine a USA that has very low amount of military power, lets say 100 billion a year, and instead the rest of the money goes to free healthcare for everyone? That candidate would win with 100+ million votes.

No one will do that, not even the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. The retarded medical care system in the United States will stay for ever. Even OTC drugs cost 10x or 20x of the prices in Canada or Mexico. Medical procedures are insanely expensive. The co-pay amount itself is more than what Canadians pay for their complete treatment. But the tragedy is that no one want to change any of that. And then there is this prescription drug (opioid) epidemic which is killing more than 100,000 Americans every year. No one really care. Ask any white collar American and they will tell you that these people are all junkies and they deserve to die.

[savetheFORUM]

First of all, Trump is a businessman. Do you really expect him to take a stance against these big private defense companies such as Boeing and Raytheon? There is a big difference in what he says in the public, and what he practices in reality. No politician, whether he is Republican or Democrat has the courage to take on sectors such as Pharma and Defense, who are like parasites leaching the American society. Even medications for common diseases such as diabetes cost 10x or 20x more in the United States, compared to the prices in Canada. Trump didn't did anything to relieve this issue when he was the POTUS.

Independents can, and that's the issue. Bernie Sanders has been saying that he would take from the 1%, and take from these leeches that feed from society and he has not been getting the votes needed to get nominated for presidency let alone be the president.

This shows you that, when the whole nation pays trillions to healthcare (both medication and hospital bills) and while they are paying hundreds of dollars for insulin whereas Canadians and all of us in the world pay like 5 bucks at most, they are still not voting for the guy who would make it cheaper, and while defence is getting near 1 trillion a year, and while USA printed nearly 5 trillion dollars and only paid 1-1.5 of that to people and rest to rich people, they still vote for people like Biden and Trump, and not to people like Bernie. So maybe, they deserve it? Let them suffer? It's not my nation after all, if they make a mistake, it's their own mistake.

[Sithara007]

Bernie Sanders is radical socialist and his ideas may not be practical. I welcome his stance on Medicare, but some of the other policies such as wealth tax and additional tax on the super-rich may be difficult to implement. Sanders once said that no one should earn more than 1 million USD. I believe that since the mainstream parties are hell bent on maintaining the status quo, the only way forward for the ordinary people is to file lawsuits in SCOTUS to make prescription and OTC drugs more cheaper to the general public. And I don't know how practical this step is.

[LUCKMCFLY]

One thing Trump could do that others wouldn't is to quit ties with NATO. As he alreasy haa threaten to do so. This could lead to full blown war with Europe and Russia that would spread like a wild fire towards ww3. I am not even kidding, i know people like to use ww3 as a cliche scare tactic, but this war would in a whole different scale, like something we haven't ever seen before.

I am not sure if his voters care as lot's of them wouldn't understand that it would very much affect them.

However i can't see this affecting betting ratios.

I don't think that Trump supports the dissolution of NATO. What he wants is more contribution from the EU nations. US spends close to $600 billion every year on defense purposes, while the military budget of nations such as Germany and England remains as a small percentage if their national GDP. Trump wants the EU nations to contribute in terms of funds, equipment and manpower. And I don't think that there is anything wrong in what he says. Why should the US subsidize the national defense of EU nations? Doesn't make any sense.

Donald Trump is a person who chooses to be very capitalist, and every capitalist likes to be in control and leave power to those who are convenient for themselves, at the political level we know very well that it is convenient for those who leave everything in the hands of NATO's power belongs to the USA, because it is convenient for them to have allies and that gives that nation much more power, on the other hand, it is convenient for Russia to leave everything behind because a grand coalition would put them in trouble, then it would The only thing I see here is that Trump comes in to advocate for Russia, but I don't know if this would bring more economic problems, Europe and the USA would recover, but countries that are selling oil, it would be quite a strong thing, the market would be eliminated.

[Hispo]

Bernie Sanders is radical socialist and his ideas may not be practical. I welcome his stance on Medicare, but some of the other policies such as wealth tax and additional tax on the super-rich may be difficult to implement. Sanders once said that no one should earn more than 1 million USD. I believe that since the mainstream parties are hell bent on maintaining the status quo, the only way forward for the ordinary people is to file lawsuits in SCOTUS to make prescription and OTC drugs more cheaper to the general public. And I don't know how practical this step is.

I have read about Bernie and his ideas. I agree he may be too left-leaning to the average American voter, it would be difficult for the majority of people in that country to hear about affordable medicine, universal healthcare, openly accepting immigrants, high taxation, etc; without having the perception of an overhaul to the whole capitalist system which exist nowadays in the USA and many have lived in during years.

Anyways, I would say Sanders have little to no chance to become a presidential candidate anymore, I doubt he would get far during the democrat primaries and if he did, I would bet against him.