2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets!

[Haunebu]

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

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

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

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

[LUCKMCFLY]

Wut? Trump never admitted the loss. First time he said he lost 'by a whisker' was this month! And then later he said he was just being sarcastic about it.
 
And nothing else happened? Tell that to those 890 people who have been found guilty of federal crimes, because trump trump inspired them by raving elections were stolen. If that's nothing i would like to know what's that something you are waiting for.

Maybe you should watch the debate, so you would see with your own eyes why the odds suddenly changed.

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

[beerlover]

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

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

[ChiBitCTy]

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

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

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

[pawel7777]

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

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

[alani123]

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

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

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

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

[pawel7777]

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

I don't think that ever worked that way. Taxing millionaires is not that easy, as often they don't pay themselves any taxable income (as they don't have to) and retain money within their business, for investments etc. So the concept of the government taking a chunk of it to re-distribute (losing a lot of it in the process) to stimulate the economy is flawed.
And whenever the government mentions some strange ideas to get their money, like the concept of unrealised gains tax, there's a rightful panic and a risk the rich would be looking to move their businesses and wealth elsewhere.
But frankly, I think it's all just a bluff on her part aimed to earn more votes. If she/Biden were serious about that, they'd have done it already.

[alani123]

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

I don't think that ever worked that way. Taxing millionaires is not that easy, as often they don't pay themselves any taxable income (as they don't have to) and retain money within their business, for investments etc. So the concept of the government taking a chunk of it to re-distribute (losing a lot of it in the process) to stimulate the economy is flawed.
And whenever the government mentions some strange ideas to get their money, like the concept of unrealised gains tax, there's a rightful panic and a risk the rich would be looking to move their businesses and wealth elsewhere.
But frankly, I think it's all just a bluff on her part aimed to earn more votes. If she/Biden were serious about that, they'd have done it already.

Millionaires hiding their income in non-taxable forms such as assets is a trick that they have utilized for far too long and the capitalist establishment was more than willing to afford them the freedom to do that. Now Kamala has shown willingness to end that and this is going to send a big precedent worldwide. If millionaires can't hide their wealth in the US, the forefront of capitalism, soon all of the world's large economies are bound to follow.

This was a common sense policy and should have been there from the start, but at least they figured now that economic inequality had widened so much people are starving while billionaires are getting a larger piece of the pie year after year only for the handful bunch that they are.

[bbc.reporter]

It appears that Trump's rating has increased by 2% on Polymarket hehehehe. He is 48% from 46% at present.

https://polymarket.com/event/presidential-election-winner-2024/will-kamala-harris-win-the-2024-us-presidential-election?tid=1727061554376

If this is a chart of a cryptocoin, does this appear to be the movement of a coin that might pump strongly or dump?



Also, if the rumors that Russia can manipulate the election to favor a candidate, who would Russia want to become the president and what type of administration would be easier for Russia? Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

[Vod]

Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

Sorry to interject out of nowhere, but nuclear war is pretty well guaranteed at this point. All the tensions we have seen so far haven't even taken into account water scarcity yet.     

[Haunebu]

Also, if the rumors that Russia can manipulate the election to favor a candidate, who would Russia want to become the president and what type of administration would be easier for Russia? Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

Who gives a crap about such pointless rumours? Russia will continue their invasion of Ukraine thanks to brain-dead Putin regardless of whoever becomes the next president based on my observations.

Also, this whole nuclear war stuff is silly talk since it stands to benefit absolutely no one. Always hilarious seeing fat Kim display his nation's nuclear power now and then when we all know that it's just an illusion and nothing more.

[TwitchySeal]

It might be because for them, what business does America have over Russia and Ukraine?

That's a good question.

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

America should be the peace keeping diplomats, I reckon. They should not support war being the stronger superpower but their military should answer in force if no one wants peace.

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

You: "But US invaded smaller countries too"

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

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

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

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

So you think America should consider the agreement to protect Ukraine in exchange for giving up their nukes void because Russia, who signed the same agreement, attacked Ukraine.

And you also think Biden should have stacked up US troops on the Russia/Ukraine border while they were trading rocket attacks and Putin was stacking up Russian forces on his side of the same border.

It seems like your primary goal is to argue that any decision Biden made was the wrong decision, and any decision Trump has made, or has said he will make, is the correct decision, and the only way to get there is if you ignore the downsides of what Trump says he will do and the downsides of  what you say Biden should have done but didn't.

The downside to Biden stacking up US troops in Ukraine while Putin is preparing to invade is nuclear war.  The upside is Putin backs down, and yes, that would be the absolute best outcome, but with two nuclear powers staring each other down on the border of Russia while rockets are flying, part of the risk is a new war starts by accident due to a stray rocket or a miscommunication.  So if you're in Bidens shoes in Feb 2022 how sure would you need to be to take that risk?  Would you do it if there was a 90% chance of not starting a nuclear war with Russia?  95%?  

Do you understand what the downside to cutting off support for Ukraine next year is?  What do you think the worst case scenario with a 10-20% possibility would be?

Also, if the rumors that Russia can manipulate the election to favor a candidate, who would Russia want to become the president and what type of administration would be easier for Russia? Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

Not rumors, he did it in 2016 to help Trump and he's doing it again right now to help Trump.  We know exactly how he did it in 2016 and we know at least part of what he's doing now.

In fact many of the Trump supporters in this thread, including you, are falling for the disinformation that Russia is working to spread.

[nullama]

Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

Sorry to interject out of nowhere, but nuclear war is pretty well guaranteed at this point. All the tensions we have seen so far haven't even taken into account water scarcity yet.     

I don't think nuclear war is a given today.

I think it is mostly believed that humanity was closest to nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962...

But now it is all different, I think society has been changing with AI and social media, etc.

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

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

It is natural that there is competition during elections and those in power will definitely make changes according to what they want. Elections are an arena for selection and candidates will compete on ideas to gain the sympathy of voters. Trump has the ability to argue in debates while Kamala is not an orator who can influence people. In the context of elections this may have a little effect although not overall and Trump is much more capable in this matter.

No leader is able to solve all existing problems and it is not only in the US because in any country it is difficult for the president to solve all existing problems in a short time.

[Hispo]

Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

Sorry to interject out of nowhere, but nuclear war is pretty well guaranteed at this point. All the tensions we have seen so far haven't even taken into account water scarcity yet.     

I don't think nuclear war is a given today.

I think it is mostly believed that humanity was closest to nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962...

But now it is all different, I think society has been changing with AI and social media, etc.

A nuclear war today, in my opinion, is less likely to happen because both parties (or all the multiple parties involved) would be pretty much aware that the use of such weapons of mass destruction would translate into mutual destruction of all of them, so they do not use those weapons, but nuclear countries keep them at bay for intimidation purposes, being the most important example North Korea.
Since we are now talking about nuclear weapons in this betting thread on the presidential elections of the USA, I would feel personally more comfortable with keeping Trump as away as possible from the nuclear button, not even mentioning he is the kind of person who would further push for a hot war in the middle east, Trump is completely onboard with the interests of Israel, and those have much to do with expansionism, I am afraid.

[virasog]

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

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

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

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

To make your argument even more understandable, we should know that "Trump needs bitcoin to help him win the elections, but Bitcoin does not need Trump to have a bull run"

I hope this statement will make it clear that even if today Trump announces that he will not accept Bitcoin, still it will have no effect on the longevity and adoption of Bitcoin. Many people are thinking that if Trump does not support Bitcoin or if he is not elected as the president, it will have a bad impact on Bitcoin or the bull market, but this is not the case. I hope everyone knows that there was no Trump in the 2017 and 2021 bull markets  

[CryptSafe]

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

It is natural that there is competition during elections and those in power will definitely make changes according to what they want. Elections are an arena for selection and candidates will compete on ideas to gain the sympathy of voters. Trump has the ability to argue in debates while Kamala is not an orator who can influence people. In the context of elections this may have a little effect although not overall and Trump is much more capable in this matter.

No leader is able to solve all existing problems and it is not only in the US because in any country it is difficult for the president to solve all existing problems in a short time.

Trump is a good orator and can talk for a long time without piping into a note or anything for a reminder and I wonder how he does that. Anyways that's just a minor concerns about the citizens but a good leadership is the dream of the American citizens this forth coming polls.
Trump during his time as the president was able to implement policies that favored Americans and the economy was at a good stand which Americans commended him for. I believe he would win this elections and even do much better than his previous term in office as the President of the United States. It is left for the Americans to decide during the polls and I wish them the best of luck when choosing their president. 

[ChiBitCTy]

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

It is natural that there is competition during elections and those in power will definitely make changes according to what they want. Elections are an arena for selection and candidates will compete on ideas to gain the sympathy of voters. Trump has the ability to argue in debates while Kamala is not an orator who can influence people. In the context of elections this may have a little effect although not overall and Trump is much more capable in this matter.

No leader is able to solve all existing problems and it is not only in the US because in any country it is difficult for the president to solve all existing problems in a short time.

Trump is a good orator and can talk for a long time without piping into a note or anything for a reminder and I wonder how he does that. Anyways that's just a minor concerns about the citizens but a good leadership is the dream of the American citizens this forth coming polls.
Trump during his time as the president was able to implement policies that favored Americans and the economy was at a good stand which Americans commended him for. I believe he would win this elections and even do much better than his previous term in office as the President of the United States. It is left for the Americans to decide during the polls and I wish them the best of luck when choosing their president. 

I'm assuming you're not an American based on how you typed up your response here.  I would hold you to the question of "Trump during his time as the president was able to implement policies that favored Americans and the economy was at a good stand which Americans commended him for".  I'm not sure which policies you're referring to.  Many Americans, such as myself, don't really thank him for anything. He divided us like never before, and is still doing so.

I want to place a bet on Kamala, but I'm always wrong with whom I think is going to win. Still internally debating this one.

[TwitchySeal]

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

It is natural that there is competition during elections and those in power will definitely make changes according to what they want. Elections are an arena for selection and candidates will compete on ideas to gain the sympathy of voters. Trump has the ability to argue in debates while Kamala is not an orator who can influence people. In the context of elections this may have a little effect although not overall and Trump is much more capable in this matter.

No leader is able to solve all existing problems and it is not only in the US because in any country it is difficult for the president to solve all existing problems in a short time.

Trump is a good orator and can talk for a long time without piping into a note or anything for a reminder and I wonder how he does that. Anyways that's just a minor concerns about the citizens but a good leadership is the dream of the American citizens this forth coming polls.
Trump during his time as the president was able to implement policies that favored Americans and the economy was at a good stand which Americans commended him for. I believe he would win this elections and even do much better than his previous term in office as the President of the United States. It is left for the Americans to decide during the polls and I wish them the best of luck when choosing their president.  

I'm assuming you're not an American based on how you typed up your response here.  I would hold you to the question of "Trump during his time as the president was able to implement policies that favored Americans and the economy was at a good stand which Americans commended him for".  I'm not sure which policies you're referring to.  Many Americans, such as myself, don't really thank him for anything. He divided us like never before, and is still doing so.

I want to place a bet on Kamala, but I'm always wrong with whom I think is going to win. Still internally debating this one.

Wait you didn't enjoy watching all the riots, lies, recession, and the "everyone is really pissed off" vibe?

[Akbarkoe]

Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?

Sorry to interject out of nowhere, but nuclear war is pretty well guaranteed at this point. All the tensions we have seen so far haven't even taken into account water scarcity yet.     

It seems that yes, a nuclear war is imminent if the Biden way is used again by the elected leader, seeing that diplomatic relations in the Biden administration were very bad, tensions were mounting especially with Russia + China and the double standards they did that made many people angry about US alignments during the Biden period and if I was not mistaken, Arabs did not require oil buyers to use dollars anymore.

So do you think Trump or Harris sir can handle all these crises?