Political Betting Thread

[TrueAscension]

People still love Hillary Clinton. A lot of her supporters didn't vote because they thought Trump was a total joke candidate that she would steamroll. She did a horrendous job with her campaign last time, playing it safe the entire way. The dem field has thinned itself out and a re-invigorated Clinton would be refreshing at this point to most Democrats. She didn't fight fire with fire last time, she sat back and rolled her eyes thinking that she had it in the bag.

I think her approach has been very intelligent if she has an eye on running. She's sat back, let what's happening in this country sink in to most logical people, watched some pretty non-sensical debates with no real front-runners. Biden is a joke, Sanders and Beto are too far left to be electable, Warren is awesome but annoying. Hillary would instantly get her supporters back. She should at least give it another go and do it with force this time.

 

[longway]

Once the magnitude of the disaster that has befallen the DNC running with impeachment on what will turn out to be another nothing-burger, after the msm have run out of ways to spin it into something substantial, has sunk in it could galvanise Hitlery to try and swoop in for a 3rd bite of the cherry; interesting thought. But she also put her seal of approval on this impeachment debacle, so she would only appeal to the liberal loons who have a boner for trump, it would be a yoke around her neck that would keep the independents away.

 

[rev0lver]

What specifically about the transcript makes trump look really guilty to you? I just finished reading it and i don't see any quid pro pro or anything that could be construed like that.

A plainly stated quid pro quo might be discovered when more evidence arises, despite already being pretty obviously what happened and hinted at within the memo, but isn't necessary. Soliciting a foreign power for political gain in this manner is already an impeachable offense. There doesn't need to be payment or a withholding of payment. This is the hand-selected piece of evidence by the white house and is already this bad. Getting impeachment to happen is just a matter of dealing with the congressmen who are concerned it'll hurt them politically.

It's been pretty crazy to see how much right-wing media has downplayed this tbh, despite all the signs looking REALLY bad for Trump here.

 

[TrueAscension]

Once the magnitude of the disaster that has befallen the DNC running with impeachment on what will turn out to be another nothing-burger, after the msm have run out of ways to spin it into something substantial, has sunk in it could galvanise Hitlery to try and swoop in for a 3rd bite of the cherry; interesting thought. But she also put her seal of approval on this impeachment debacle, so she would only appeal to the liberal loons who have a boner for trump, it would be a yoke around her neck that would keep the independents away.

If Trump was a true MMA fan and not a casual Colby viewer you would be first in line for his next cabinet opening.

 

[rev0lver]

People still love Hillary Clinton. A lot of her supporters didn't vote because they thought Trump was a total joke candidate that she would steamroll. She did a horrendous job with her campaign last time, playing it safe the entire way. The dem field has thinned itself out and a re-invigorated Clinton would be refreshing at this point to most Democrats. She didn't fight fire with fire last time, she sat back and rolled her eyes thinking that she had it in the bag.

I think her approach has been very intelligent if she has an eye on running. She's sat back, let what's happening in this country sink in to most logical people, watched some pretty non-sensical debates with no real front-runners. Biden is a joke, Sanders and Beto are too far left to be electable, Warren is awesome but annoying. Hillary would instantly get her supporters back. She should at least give it another go and do it with force this time.

I have to strongly disagree with this. I DO agree that lots of would-be Hillary voters believed she had the election in the bag and that prevented substantial amounts of them from bothering to vote. I've stated that I think if they held some sort of runoff a day after the election, Hillary would've won. But I think this had a lot more to do with apathy toward Hillary rather than them being Hillary supporters. Trump voters came out, despite many of them thinking it was a lost cause, because they were excited about their candidate and he inspired them to get out and vote. Hillary would be the worst kind of person to try and run in this election. The dems need someone who can light a fire under them. Even if none can totally unite the party, if someone can inspire and excite a substantial amount of dems+independents, the rest is still there for an anti-Trump vote.

 

[TrueAscension]

I have to strongly disagree with this. I DO agree that lots of would-be Hillary voters believed she had the election in the bag and that prevented substantial amounts of them from bothering to vote. I've stated that I think if they held some sort of runoff a day after the election, Hillary would've won. But I think this had a lot more to do with apathy toward Hillary rather than them being Hillary supporters. Trump voters came out, despite many of them thinking it was a lost cause, because they were excited about their candidate and he inspired them to get out and vote. Hillary would be the worst kind of person to try and run in this election. The dems need someone who can light a fire under them. Even if none can totally unite the party, if someone can inspire and excite a substantial amount of dems+independents, the rest is still there for an anti-Trump vote.

I'm with Bill Maher then if you want to light a fire. He says the only dem who can beat Trump is Oprah. She'd definitely light a fire.

The problem with the DNC right now is the same problem RNC had facing Barack. Too many candidates and no one compelling.

 

[rev0lver]

I'm with Bill Maher then if you want to light a fire. He says the only dem who can beat Trump is Oprah. She'd definitely light a fire.

The problem with the DNC right now is the same problem RNC had facing Barack. Too many candidates and no one compelling.

You have populists in Bernie and Yang and a semi-populist in Warren. You can disagree with their proposals but you can't argue they don't light a fire under people, especially among demographics that are generally more apathetic.

I would probably have to disagree with everything Bill Maher says lol. He wants a candidate with the most bland policy proposals and repeat the same mistakes the party's been making. This guy actually said he wants Amy Klobuchar lmao. It's an outdated style of thinking about politics that's risking another presidential loss despite the evidence (see: Hillary losing to Trump, progressive candidates outpolling everyone except the one with the most name recognition in our former VP, "far-left" issues polling very favorably among members of all parties, etc)

 

[longway]

A plainly stated quid pro quo might be discovered when more evidence arises, despite already being pretty obviously what happened and hinted at within the memo, but isn't necessary. Soliciting a foreign power for political gain in this manner is already an impeachable offense. There doesn't need to be payment or a withholding of payment. This is the hand-selected piece of evidence by the white house and is already this bad. Getting impeachment to happen is just a matter of dealing with the congressmen who are concerned it'll hurt them politically.

It's been pretty crazy to see how much right-wing media has downplayed this tbh, despite all the signs looking REALLY bad for Trump here.

Hinted at? Ok, so quid pro quo is out.

Isn’t investigating crowdstrike, the company that provided the report that the fbi used to determine that dnc servers were hacked by russia not worthy of investigation? Its integral to the allegations of 2016 election interference. The dnc blocked the fbi from directly accessing their servers, but allowed this foreign company to do so.

Biden is on video boasting he got the prosecutor who was investigating the company that employed his son, paying him $50,000 a month, fired by threatening to withhold $1 billion aid. Is that not worthy of investigation? What were they paying him for?

Its not trump’s fault that biden is running, or his son was connected to a corrupt ukrainian company that his dear old dad coincidentally helped get out of a jam they were in.

For the record i think there were other valid reasons for biden’s quid pro quo, but to make out what trump is doing is particularly bad is one hell of a flex.

 

[TrueAscension]

You have populists in Bernie and Yang and a semi-populist in Warren. You can disagree with their proposals but you can't argue they don't light a fire under people, especially among demographics that are generally more apathetic.

I would probably have to disagree with everything Bill Maher says lol. He wants a candidate with the most bland policy proposals and repeat the same mistakes the party's been making. This guy actually said he wants Amy Klobuchar lmao. It's an outdated style of thinking about politics that's risking another presidential loss despite the evidence (see: Hillary losing to Trump, progressive candidates outpolling everyone except the one with the most name recognition in our former VP, "far-left" issues polling very favorably among members of all parties, etc)

I think his only point about Oprah is that people are now just so fucking stupid they don't actually care about policies, they just want someone they like to watch on television.

 

[rev0lver]

Hinted at? Ok, so quid pro quo is out.

Isn’t investigating crowdstrike, the company that provided the report that the fbi used to determine that dnc servers were hacked by russia not worthy of investigation? Its integral to the allegations of 2016 election interference. The dnc blocked the fbi from directly accessing their servers, but allowed this foreign company to do so.

Biden is on video boasting he got the prosecutor who was investigating the company that employed his son, paying him $50,000 a month, fired by threatening to withhold $1 billion aid. Is that not worthy of investigation? What were they paying him for?

Its not trump’s fault that biden is running, or his son was connected to a corrupt ukrainian company that his dear old dad coincidentally helped get out of a jam they were in.

For the record i think there were other valid reasons for biden’s quid pro quo, but to make out what trump is doing is particularly bad is one hell of a flex.

Quid pro quo is definitely not out. There's implications of it within the memo, and everything that was going on at the time makes it pretty unlikely that it wasn't the case. There's going to be more evidence uncovered, either for or against Trump's case. This wasn't even a transcript of this call, just notes, so the specific wording (if a transcript ever comes out) will be important.

I'm definitely not going to defend Biden lol. Everyone at the time, literally a coalition of our allies, was trying to get that prosecutor removed for very legitimate reasons that had nothing to do with the Bidens. But there could be conflicts of interest there too, and if those dealings are worth looking into, then go ahead. Trump's family should probably be looked into, too. But using your position as president to request a foreign leader to dig up dirt on a political rival, especially when the US has leverage on that leader's cooperation (explicitly discussed or not), is very problematic and an easy ground for impeachment. It could happen even if this is the only piece of evidence we ever see.

 

[rev0lver]

I think his only point about Oprah is that people are now just so fucking stupid they don't actually care about policies, they just want someone they like to watch on television.

Still totally disagree with that. I mean, maybe there's a handful of Americans who are like that. But I feel like there's some sort of denial that people actually connected with Trump's messaging and his proposals, because they definitely did. People do care about issues, especially as we grow more connected and politically aware. Trump's election was a LOT more than him just being that dude from The Apprentice. Bernie Sanders came in as a virtual no-name (as far as most of the population is concerned) and shot to stardom based on his policy proposals and rejection of the establishment. Him, Warren, Yang, and some others to an extent are doing that now, and I see a lot more people care about that than I see people tweeting stuff like "Kanye 2020 yeet"

 

[longway]

Wow. The prosecutor who got fired under the pressure of Biden's threat to withhold $1 billion aid, has sworn under affidavit that it was bc he refused to close his investigation into Burisma, the company where Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 a month in 'consultancy fees'. This I did not expect. Biden bettors better think carefully. And the chance of Hitlery swooping in has definitely increased. With Biden, there is not only a smoking gun, but they have also found a nearby corpse with a bullet lodged in his skull.



Disclaimer: I can't vouch for the veracity of this stuff, it just turned up on my twitter feed, but definitely worth looking into.

 

[TrueAscension]

Still totally disagree with that. I mean, maybe there's a handful of Americans who are like that. But I feel like there's some sort of denial that people actually connected with Trump's messaging and his proposals, because they definitely did. People do care about issues, especially as we grow more connected and politically aware. Trump's election was a LOT more than him just being that dude from The Apprentice. Bernie Sanders came in as a virtual no-name (as far as most of the population is concerned) and shot to stardom based on his policy proposals and rejection of the establishment. Him, Warren, Yang, and some others to an extent are doing that now, and I see a lot more people care about that than I see people tweeting stuff like "Kanye 2020 yeet"

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.

 

[longway]

Quid pro quo is definitely not out. There's implications of it within the memo, and everything that was going on at the time makes it pretty unlikely that it wasn't the case. There's going to be more evidence uncovered, either for or against Trump's case. This wasn't even a transcript of this call, just notes, so the specific wording (if a transcript ever comes out) will be important.

I'm definitely not going to defend Biden lol. Everyone at the time, literally a coalition of our allies, was trying to get that prosecutor removed for very legitimate reasons that had nothing to do with the Bidens. But there could be conflicts of interest there too, and if those dealings are worth looking into, then go ahead. Trump's family should probably be looked into, too. But using your position as president to request a foreign leader to dig up dirt on a political rival, especially when the US has leverage on that leader's cooperation (explicitly discussed or not), is very problematic and an easy ground for impeachment. It could happen even if this is the only piece of evidence we ever see.

Can you cite a law that has been broken? We have sitting democratic senators who explicitly told Ukraine that if they don't cooperate with Mueller, that relations with the USA will deteriorate when democrats will take power. This is in a letter.

I would like to point out that Ukraine had no idea that Trump had decided to withhold aid at the time of the call. Trump is doing his job. The DNC and many others in the political establishment have odd bod connections to this corrupt EE country. Well worth looking into.

 

[TrueAscension]

Did Clinton break a law when he lied about getting a blowy?

 

[longway]

1U on Hitlery becoming the nominee. Apparently corporate DNC donors have let it be known that is Warren gets the nod, there will be no donations from them. And with a potential scandal engulfing Biden.. well, it's going to get interesting. I am already over 2.6U up on my Warren bets, I may cash out soon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/wal...rs-may-back-trump-if-warren-is-nominated.html

This is an MSM outlet, so take with a grain of salt, but I can only imagine Hitlery's odds lowering over the next week or 2, she has booked herself into a lot of interviews over the next week.

 

[trident]

Hillary isnt running
Oprah cant beat Trump
Warren is winning the primary
"And still...."

 

[longway]

Did Clinton break a law when he lied about getting a blowy?

Did his poll numbers improve afterward?

 

[TrueAscension]

Did his poll numbers improve afterward?

Not exactly the point. He was impeached.

 

[rev0lver]

Can you cite a law that has been broken? We have sitting democratic senators who explicitly told Ukraine that if they don't cooperate with Mueller, that relations with the USA will deteriorate when democrats will take power. This is in a letter.

I would like to point out that Ukraine had no idea that Trump had decided to withhold aid at the time of the call. Trump is doing his job. The DNC and many others in the political establishment have odd bod connections to this corrupt EE country. Well worth looking into.

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.