[BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon

[Free Market Capitalist]

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

If Trump wins... Etc.

If Harris wins.... 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.

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

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

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

[mindrust]

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...

[TwitchySeal]

On one hand we have Trump

“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.”

[mindrust]

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.

[paxmao]

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:

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...

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...

On one hand we have Trump

“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.”

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.

[suchmoon]

On one hand we have Trump who can do a podcast 3 hours straight and talk about anything

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.

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.

[paxmao]

On one hand we have Trump who can do a podcast 3 hours straight and talk about anything

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.

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".

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

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.

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

I hope I do not have any secondary effect.

[Free Market Capitalist]

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.

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.

I can't even believe she is getting any votes at this point. She shouldn't be getting more than 2%.

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

Theymos should stop playing Washington Post, man up like Elon  and declare his support for Trump.

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

Obvious problem, you will not vote it because you know there is no chance of it winning

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

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.

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?

[BADecker]

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.

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.

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


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.
...

[Free Market Capitalist]

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?

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.

[paxmao]

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.

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.

I can't even believe she is getting any votes at this point. She shouldn't be getting more than 2%.

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

Theymos should stop playing Washington Post, man up like Elon  and declare his support for Trump.

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

Obvious problem, you will not vote it because you know there is no chance of it winning

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

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.

[Free Market Capitalist]

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.

[paxmao]

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   I think you guys have been long enough into crypto to have the odd bitcoin here and there. Anything less than 1 bitcoin is just not enough for the show  

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

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

[Free Market Capitalist]

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

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

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...

There is no perfect electoral system.

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.

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

With the current system, fraud in a few counties could be enough.

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

[TwitchySeal]

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.

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.

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


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.
...

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.

[theymos]

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?

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.

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

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.

On borders, I doubt that anybody would be able to implement a mass deportation process and frankly, stopping immigration is easier said than done.

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.

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

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.

[Free Market Capitalist]

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.

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.

[paxmao]

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?

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.

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

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.

On borders, I doubt that anybody would be able to implement a mass deportation process and frankly, stopping immigration is easier said than done.

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.

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

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.

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 - 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.

[paxmao]

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

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

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...

There is no perfect electoral system.

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.

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

With the current system, fraud in a few counties could be enough.

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

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 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/

A quarter of adults in Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina who identify as Democrats also consider themselves conservative. Across the South, conservative Democrats are routinely competitive in statewide elections. Yet the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill features few conservative voices. Winner-take-all elections prevent Democrats in those states from securing representation commensurate with their numbers. In each of the Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina delegations, Democrats have secured only a single seat, or around 15 percent of the seat share, despite constituting nearly 40 percent of the vote.

When Republicans argue that the system is "rigged", I can only agree. It is rigged in their favour  . 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