Political Betting Thread

TrueAscension said:
What issues? The wall he didn't build? I'm not trying to sound like a jerk because, again, I'm not political. I'm just curious what actual issues you think people voted for him on. All I remember was him being a bully in debates to everyone and not presenting anything even resembling a domestic or foreign policy stance except maybe on China.
Click to expand...

Immigration fear, promises of economic improvement, draining the swamp. I'd say those are the main ones. His voters liked a no-nonsense approach (even if you believe it is actually nonsense). His name and existing popularity just gave him the initial platform.
 
rev0lver said:
Immigration fear, promises of economic improvement, draining the swamp. I'd say those are the main ones. His voters liked a no-nonsense approach (even if you believe it is actually nonsense). His name and existing popularity just gave him the initial platform.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it is nonsense but "draining the swamp" is just hyperbole. He's fired more of his own cabinet than any president ever. He's definitely no nonsense if you don't pay attention to any of the things he's said throughout his life (including his financial support for the Clintons). He's done literally nothing to stop illegal immigration by the way.

Edit: That's not to say that any president in my lifetime has really done shit about the major issues either.
 
rev0lver said:
It can be legally considered a form of opposition research, which would constitute a violation of campaign finance laws when solicited from a foreign government. It's pretty similar to the Russia situation actually, just the opposite as this is the solicitation rather than the interference itself. On the broader scale, it would be seen as an abuse of power which itself would be the focus of impeachment. Impeachment doesn't require a specific law to be broken, so the strict legal specifics won't matter as much in the end.

The democrats+Ukraine issue was just simply asking them to comply with existing requests of cooperation in an existing investigation. That's very different than what's happening here. There was nothing in the letter about deteriorating relations with the democrats or suggesting any kind of consequence. Part of the letter was actually them being concerned Ukraine was failing to cooperate because they wanted favorable relations with Trump.

As far as the timeline of the Ukraine aid goes, I haven't heard that, but there were meetings after this call took place, and of course the possible suggestions of it within this call (again, we don't know the real transcript yet). I mean, I'm all for legitimate investigations of corruption in any form. But no one honestly believes Trump suddenly decided to cut off aid right before suddenly deciding to ask for dirt on the democratic frontrunner out of good intentions. The democratic house probably won't believe that, at least.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of conjecture in there. Trump was also only asking to reopen a mothballed investigation, not start a new one. There is plenty of evidence showing that the withdrawl of military aid was merely wanting Germany to contribute more, so the investigation was unconnected. And i reiterate, Ukraine had no idea he had done so at the time of the call, and they were very cooperative already, they knew only a month later.

I’m not saying impeachment wont happen, but to get the public behind it, there has to be more than conjecture, and a bs narrative about aid.

I find it hard to differentiate trump’s actions and those of dem senators and biden. Both clearly had conflicts of interests and were explicit on the pressuring ukraine. Trump just had a chat with a friendly leader. Why are dem corrution problems trumps problems? He waited until the mueller nonsense was complete before digging into this stuff. At what point can he just do his job?

Btw the whistle complaint stated that trump broke laws, but now that is irrelevant?
 
Last edited:
longway said:
There is a lot of conjecture in there. Trump was also only asking to reopen a mothballed investigation, not start a new one. There is plenty of evidence showing that the withdrawl of military aid was merely wanting Germany to contribute more, so the investigation was unconnected. And i reiterate, Ukraine had no idea he had done so at the time of the call, and they were very cooperative already, they knew only a month later.

I’m not saying impeachment wont happen, but to get the public behind it, there has to be more than conjecture, and a bs narrative about aid.

I find it hard to differentiate trump’s actions and those of dem senators and biden. Both clearly had conflicts of interests and were explicit on the pressuring ukraine. Trump just had a chat with a friendly leader. Why are dem corrution problems trumps problems? He waited until the mueller nonsense was complete before digging into this stuff. At what point can he just do his job?

Btw the whistle complaint stated that trump broke laws, but now that is irrelevant?
Click to expand...

The whistleblower complaint can still be true in that. Again, there's more evidence to be released, and the complaint didn't just refer to this one phone call (that we don't even have 100% of the details on yet). Supposedly everything that was said in the complaint was corroborated to an extent. I'm just saying it's not necessarily relevant to impeachment.

Trump was asking to look into something that no one seemed to care about anymore, when there's a million other people with issues worth looking into. But this is a political rival. There's not "plenty of evidence" of Germany's contributions being the issue. Germany+other EU countries gives Ukraine more than the United States does. That never even made sense. Not to mention Trump's defense shifted from "they're corrupt so they shouldn't get money" to "I withheld it because other countries should give more money" within about 24 hours. That was just them flailing around to try to give a reason.

The call had Trump stating "we do a lot for Ukraine" and "we are very very good to Ukraine" before asking to "do us a favor". The president of Ukraine believes there's hundreds of millions in aid coming in from a guy asking to do him a favor. It's pretty easy to see what's improper here. And again, there could've been discussions and threats before+after this that were more explicit in a quid pro quo. The democratic senators had nothing resembling a threat or pressure in their letter. They were asking for cooperation with an active investigation they're supposed to be cooperating with, in response to a story that Ukraine might be refusing cooperation due to Trump's political pressure.

Also, polling is showing public support for impeachment jumping SIGNIFICANTLY in the past week. I think it was around 35-65 before? Now it's hovering around 50-50 in all the polls I've seen. Yeah there's an extent to which polling shapes congress's actions, but congress taking actions like this shapes public opinion too.

Just look at how people are responding to this though. Hannity's hands look like he punched a wall and he's telling people behind the scenes how bad this looks. Giuliani is having full-blown meltdowns on the news. Trump's tweets are even more unhinged than usual. Fox News has resorted to quoting the white house's talking point emails almost verbatim. They all know they're screwed on this.
 
Last edited:
I don't know man. I don't want to get deep into it, let's stick to how it affects betting lines. But allow me to continue to point out if you think this is bad, it's just as bad when Biden and democrats do it. And if a US VP involved in forcing an ally to do things for him when he had a conflict of interest is not a big deal, then what is?

Even the NYT reports Ukrainian officials did not know that the money had been withheld.

Mr. Trump did not discuss the delay in the military assistance on the July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky, according to people familiar with the conversation. A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky’s government did not learn of the delay until about one month after the call.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/trump-un-biden-ukraine.html
 
No one disagrees that its bad when people from both parties do it but why does every Trump supporter answer for him by calling out perceived misdeeds by the DNC?
But Hillary's emails!!! But Biden's son!!
Can't defend the indefensible I suppose.
 
TrueAscension said:
No one disagrees that its bad when people from both parties do it but why does every Trump supporter answer for him by calling out perceived misdeeds by the DNC?
But Hillary's emails!!! But Biden's son!!
Can't defend the indefensible I suppose.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to defend; it's a nothing burger. He applied no direct pressure unlike Biden or the senators, yet it is portrayed as orders of magnitude worse. Ukraine did not know aid was withheld, it's over, there is nothing there.
 
Last edited:
It looks very much like Soreloserillary wants to swoop in. Looks like my 1u play may payoff bigly.

 
trump to leave before first term finishes down to 4.4, sizable change after this impeachment stuff, seems a bit of an overreaction to me. it was 10.0 a week or 2 ago
 
Roads55 said:
your better off sending the money here: https://www.rspca.org.uk/
Click to expand...

I dont need her to enter or win, I got her at over +2200 on betfair exchange, she, with her typical poor judgement, has decided to be one of the clowns in the impeachment circus (and she does look desperate for another shot), so that should be enough to shift the odds enough to get a decent payoff when I cash out my position.
 
I don't think much of the dnc will want hillary to run, that would confirm to many voters that the party hasn't accepted responsibility for losing to trump by selecting such a poor candidate instead of just blaming russia still.
 
^ its unlikely. But if biden drops out, and given his health, and the inevitable focus on his actions in ukraine after people lose interest in the dnc's interpretive dance theatrics to create a nontroversy over trump's perfectly reasonable conversation, which i think is fairly likely, then the odds movement could provide an opportunity, esp if killary flies a balloon to test the response. And Watching her speech, she is itching for another shot, the woman is demented.
 
Last edited:
Killary is still not over losing. I think she is desperate for another go. I trust her to do something stupid, and it should pay off for me. That's what I see anyway. The first half of this 3minute segment is about her loss to Trump and the second half about the impeachment inquiry. She claims, without irony, that Trump is obsessed with her. What a psycho.

 
First rule of wagering is to not let your personal feelings about your team get in the way of the bet. I see a ton of that in this thread. "Killary?" Are you kidding?
 
^ I don't like Ugillary at all, but that doesn't mean I letting my personal feelings get in the way. She is claiming, 3 years on, that Trump is an illegitimate president, that means in her head she is the real president, she is legitimately bonkers. And you put me on the idea anyway, I do think she wants to run and is psycho enough to make a move in that direction.
 
longway said:
^ I don't like Ugillary at all, but that doesn't mean I letting my personal feelings get in the way. She is claiming, 3 years on, that Trump is an illegitimate president, that means in her head she is the real president, she is legitimately bonkers.
Click to expand...

I don't care for her personally myself but Trump is pretty fucking bonkers himself dude.
 
TrueAscension said:
I don't care for her personally myself but Trump is pretty fucking bonkers himself dude.
Click to expand...

A reality show host with an orange spray tan and an improbable combover is your president, what is bonkers about that? Seriously though, outside him manufacturing outrage with his tweets, he generally pursues fairly moderate policies. Most of the stuff he does was mainstream opinion from the democrats 15-20 years ago, these guys have lost the plot bigly.
 
longway said:
A reality show host with an orange spray tan and an improbable combover is your president, what is bonkers about that? Seriously though, outside him manufacturing outrage with his tweets, he generally pursues fairly moderate policies. Most of the stuff he does was mainstream opinion from the democrats 15-20 years ago, these guys have lost the plot bigly.
Click to expand...

Manufacturing outrage is a pretty bonkers thing to do for the highest office in the country and maybe the world. There are real world consequences aside from just getting under the Democrats skin. Surely you see that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,144
Messages
57,970,757
Members
175,885
Latest member
gono

Share this page

Back
Top