President Trump

FogBlueInSanFran said:
What are the best odds if I want to bet against? Not sure I understand -- the NH polls predicted DOUBLE the margin for Trump then it actually ended up being (which is why he's so mad) and as others have pointed out, independents (who can vote in the GOP primary) went for the opposition (Haley) at unprecedented levels in NH. Trump MUST of needs get independents. I don't get it. I'm in.
Click to expand...
If you want to back Joe Biden you'll have round about 190% profit on your stake.

If you want to Lay Trump ( Basically you wanting him to lose against anyone) you'll have around 90% Profit on your stake.

This is the market to lay Trump on.

1000028310.jpg
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:

Unfortunately, bettors have been rather more accurate than pollsters when predicting election outcomes; and even if seeking solace in polls, there's none to be had.

I'm cautiously optimistic that bettors have this one wrong, and that a (hoped-for) Trump felony conviction coupled with (hoped-for) introduction of abortion rights measures into the 2024 ballots will tip the outcome in Biden's favor; optimistic but without great conviction.
Click to expand...
Could well be that the odds are skewed by the number of his moronic supporters who are lumping on him, whereas most people are avoiding this market because there’s too many uncertainties.
 
west didsblue said:
Could well be that the odds are skewed by the number of his moronic supporters who are lumping on him, whereas most people are avoiding this market because there’s too many uncertainties.
Click to expand...

There will be people trading on the price, so any time something positive for trump happens they will back him in and then trade out. Then the actual bookies will drop their odds as well to stop them being arbed.
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
Of course they will bottle it, he put them there. This is the inherent flaw in their daft system which removes the seperation of powers
Click to expand...
I asked this before, I think.

If not the President who nominates (and whose nominees must be passed through congressional committee, and then approved by both legislative bodies -- who represent the people), how should the Supreme Court justices be determined? By the way, since all three branches of government participate in the process, I don't know how separation of pwers is "removed".

Your answer must offer an ironclad guarantee that whatever process you suggest cannot be politically influenced in any way, shape or form.

Thinking about it, I think you'll find that there is no way. It's not an inherently flawed system. It's a system that becomes flawed if those in it ignore their oaths and abuse the trust placed in them.

Now if you want to argue that ethics rules aren't remotely stringent enough, or SC justices shouldn't be appointed for life, or there should be more of them, then those are different issues that could bring about postentially positive change.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
He's going to be the president of the world again isnt he. It surely looking that way. I dont know whats worse, Russia giving us Putin or USA voting Trump back in.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. One is a corrupt despot who will do anything to further his own ends at the expense of anyone and anything. And the other is Vladimir Putin. Tough choice.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I asked this before, I think.

If not the President who nominates (and whose nominees must be passed through congressional committee, and then approved by both legislative bodies -- who represent the people), how should the Supreme Court justices be determined? By the way, since all three branches of government participate in the process, I don't know how separation of pwers is "removed".

Your answer must offer an ironclad guarantee that whatever process you suggest cannot be politically influenced in any way, shape or form.

Thinking about it, I think you'll find that there is no way. It's not an inherently flawed system. It's a system that becomes flawed if those in it ignore their oaths and abuse the trust placed in them.

Now if you want to argue that ethics rules aren't remotely stringent enough, or SC justices shouldn't be appointed for life, or there should be more of them, then those are different issues that could bring about postentially positive change.
Click to expand...
Clarence Thomas is utterly compromised, and should be nowhere near any judicial rulings involving anyone named Trump. Gini Thomas was pretty much in the trenches with the Maga clan during the whole Jan 6 debacle. How she has so far managed to escape any legal scrutiny is beyond me.
 
Chippy_boy said:
It's like he is on a mission to be as cringe-worthy as is humanly possible, isn't it. If being an absolutely detestable tosser was his prime objective, it is clearly "mission accomplished".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately about 30% of the USA seem to lap up detestable tossers and treat this particular one like a god.

This is what you get when you make classrooms of children recite the pledge of allegiance every morning. Unquestioning fealty to an idol that can’t string a coherent sentence together.

These are broken people inhabiting a broken country. Fall of Rome style. At least the UK fell off the world stage with more of a pathetic whimper (characteristic of our nation), I fear these guys are going out with a bang.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
He's going to be the president of the world again isnt he. It surely looking that way. I dont know whats worse, Russia giving us Putin or USA voting Trump back in.
Click to expand...
Not president of the world. Their standing and influence diminished hugely after he was in last time. Collective shaking of the head from countries round the world at his ineptitude, and a knowledge that he is wholly compromised, means that nobody wants to have deal with the US anymore. No credibility.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
If anybody wanted proof that narcissists don’t do irony…

View attachment 105093
Click to expand...
Trump is desperate for Hayley to drop out as it plays into his political persecution narrative and he has some terrible days in court coming down the tracks.

If I was a never Trump Republican I'd be desperate for her to keep going as the New Hampshire result was pretty good and with the civil fraud trial soon to reach verdict the gap could close. She's a long way of being in a place to win but putting up a good fight and being a credible alternative would put her in a good position if Trump gets locked up at some point before November.

Trump and team know this. They dont want any credible alternative. They want a Trump or civil war mind set to ramp up the pressure in court.

I've seen various commentators suggest she will pull out soon. I don't see why she would but then there will be plenty going on behind the scenes. She's not going to serve in a Trump government so what's in it for her.
 
SWP's back said:
And for me, the number one reason why he doesn’t have a cat in hell’s chance to win in November.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right - and you may well be - but I am far from convinced. I had not realised just how unpopular Biden has become amongst the less well off. Whilst the Dow Jones continues to soar and the well-healed are doing quite nicely, just like the UK, millions are really struggling with high energy costs and inflation and the incumbent is blamed for all of it. There's also the unappealing prospect of re-electing someone who looks like he's well past his sell by date. He wiil be 82 years old, only days after the election, and goodness knows how much less able he would be 4 years after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top