The War Room Bet Thread v2

[Jack V Savage]

You claimed that Thomas is a Republican partisan and implied that he twists his legal reasoning to fit desired (Republican-favored) outcomes.

Correct.

Your claim is totally off base, but it's impossible to refute directly (or have a bet on the matter) if you don't provide some kind of definition for "Republican-favored outcome".

My claim is accurate, but it does require some finesse to confirm.

 

[Quipling]

Let's set it up. My claim is that Thomas will be on the other side of one of Roberts/Kennedy/Alito (your pick) in a Court decision before he dies.

That's not a very impressive bet. First, no justices are 100% in agreement on anything.

Second, he's the most fractious justice on the court. There is no justice more likely to dissent from Kennedy, and only Ginsburg comes close when it comes to dissenting from Roberts. Thomas has a consistent ideology, but it's pretty out of step with mainstream jurisprudence, which is why he rarely authors 5-4 majorities, and why he frequently dissents in even non-ideological cases.

 

[Quipling]

Forget if it's WaPo or 538 but they had this awesome interactive infographic where you could mix the justices and see the amount of time a group agreed together or each individual with another.

This doesn't allow mixing, but it does match them up:
http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

 

[waiguoren]

@Jack V Savage

House bet officially rescinded. The Republicans are infuriating Trump's base with many of their recent moves. Depressed turnout among Rs in 2018 is increasingly likely.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

House bet officially rescinded. The Republicans are infuriating Trump's base with many of their recent moves. Depressed turnout among Rs in 2018 is increasingly likely.

Fair, though I don't think there's been any big change over the past few days. I regarded myself as a slight favorite to win (around a wide range, though) if I took it when you offered, and I see it the same now.

I'm a little disappointed in the response here, though I don't blame you. My main interest in discussing a bet was that I think losing seats in the House in off years is just a kind of inevitable result of holding the WH, rather than being indicative of anything real (and thus, a lot of commentary about House races the last couple of elections has been misguided). So if someone believed the self-serving, partisan narrative, they were in for a surprise. And that's what I wanted to exploit. But I see you as kind of reversing the narrative, rather than dismissing it. That is, I wanted to disprove the MSM and partisan narrative, while I think you're accepting the MSM/partisan narratives consistently, so we arrive at the same place but for very different reasons.

I'd compare it to someone claiming, based on a Bible code, that it's going to snow this summer in LA. And I'd want to bet against that. But then they say, "wait, I misread the code. I now think it's not going to snow in LA this summer." I mean, granting that your prediction was reasonable (Republicans probably won't but certainly might keep the House--I was interested in seeing if you were predicting any losses at all).

 

[waiguoren]

Fair, though I don't think there's been any big change over the past few days. I regarded myself as a slight favorite to win (around a wide range, though) if I took it when you offered, and I see it the same now.

The new spending bill---with no funding for the wall and continued funding for sanctuary cities---has the alt right very upset.

I'm a little disappointed in the response here, though I don't blame you. My main interest in discussing a bet was that I think losing seats in the House in off years is just a kind of inevitable result of holding the WH, rather than being indicative of anything real (and thus, a lot of commentary about House races the last couple of elections has been misguided). So if someone believed the self-serving, partisan narrative, they were in for a surprise. And that's what I wanted to exploit. But I see you as kind of reversing the narrative, rather than dismissing it. That is, I wanted to disprove the MSM and partisan narrative, while I think you're accepting the MSM/partisan narratives consistently, so we arrive at the same place but for very different reasons.

We have always agreed on this. The data don't lie. With rare exception, the party winning the WH gets clobbered in the House two years later. My proposal was that the Rs would keep the House, not that they would hold steady or gain seats.

It amuses me that you think of me as a partisan. This is one of the misconceptions I intend to exploit in our future $uperbet.

I'd compare it to someone claiming, based on a Bible code, that it's going to snow this summer in LA. And I'd want to bet against that. But then they say, "wait, I misread the code. I now think it's not going to snow in LA this summer."

 

[waiguoren]

@STEVEN SEAGOLD

Sigbet. Steven Seagold wins if Trump is impeached before April 8, 2018. Waiguoren wins if Trump is not impeached before May 2, 2018. Sigbet term: 2 years.

Steven, I have adjusted the term of the bet to be 1 year from today. Please confirm.

 

[Limbo Pete]

@STEVEN SEAGOLD

Sigbet. Steven Seagold wins if Trump is impeached before April 8, 2018. Waiguoren wins if Trump is not impeached before May 2, 2018. Sigbet term: 2 years.

Steven, I have adjusted the term of the bet to be 1 year from today. Please confirm.

Come on, man
Steve is a base level troll. Put some value on these things.

 

[waiguoren]

Come on, man
Steve is a base level troll. Put some value on these things.

I looked through his posting history. Seems like a normal guy. What's the evidence that he's a troll?

Did you say the same to @Jack V Savage when he beat LucasWithLidOff? I found some posts of that guy's, seems like he was below "base level".

 

[Limbo Pete]

I looked through his posting history. Seems like a normal guy. What's the evidence that he's a troll?

Did you say the same to @Jack V Savage when he beat LucasWithLidOff? I found some posts of that guy's, seems like he was below "base level".

That post was really just about poking fun at Steven because I knew he would see it
Bet whoever you want mang

 

[waiguoren]

@loyalyolayal

We good with the sig bet? You set the length of time.

 

[loyalyolayal]

@loyalyolayal

We good with the sig bet? You set the length of time.

 

[waiguoren]

I thought you were on board with a sigbet for the French election. I've got Macron, you've got LE Pen

 

[loyalyolayal]

I thought you were on board with a sigbet for the French election. I've got Macron, you've got LE Pen

You really feel passionate about it. Are you french? Or you're one of those trying to say "I told you so" kind of special?

 

[waiguoren]

You really feel passionate about it. Are you french? Or you're one of those trying to say "I told you so" kind of special?

It's definitely possible I have some French blood.

"I told you so" gives me no satisfaction, but I am a compulsive gambler.

 

[senri]

The distortion of the political landscape is throbbing and convulsing violently, it will come to ripple upon our lives and when it happens time to act upon the individual will meet it's pinnacle nature. How will you navigate through the haystack of your convictions Mr @Lead

 

[Limbo Pete]

The distortion of the political landscape is throbbing and convulsing violently, it will come to ripple upon our lives and when it happens time to act upon the individual will meet it's pinnacle nature. How will you navigate through the haystack of your convictions Mr @Lead

Excellent gif use imo
And I don't say that lightly

 

[Jermei]

This thread...

 

[waiguoren]

Sig bet offer: Republicans will keep the Senate in 2018. Me: for. You: against

 

[Jack V Savage]

@waiguoren
Very surprised by and impressed with Thomas today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/...th-carolina-congressional-districts.html?_r=0